From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Wed Jan  3 12:53:34 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:53:34 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] OT: Retro Computing
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B54@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: Aaron Kulkis

> Michael Corral wrote:

>> Well, that's the sort of thing that happens when you invade someone
>> else's country. :\ An invasion based on lies, no less. You're no hero.

>> Just curious, Aaron, but have you killed any Iraqi women and children?

 Michael, I agree with the others that this was uncalled-for and rude.

 Moreover, I disagree with the substance of your statement. I agree that
invading Iraq was a *really* stupid idea with no good justification and a
lot of arguments against it, and moreover everything since the invasion
has borne that out.

 But the people who joined the military to serve and protect the country
don't get to choose what conflicts they join. (They have the right,
indeed the *duty*, to disobey illegal orders, of course. Being ordered
to deploy into Iraq is not such an order.) They explicitly agreed to
follow (legitimate) orders regardless of their personal opinions because
that's how a military *must* be run.

 And we need a military. I don't imagine that our rights and liberties
would survive even a month without our soldiers. I have a profound
respect for our military in general. (Note that I *do* demand the same
respect in return - the military needs civilians just as much as vice
versa. A body composed entirely of immune cells won't survive long.)

 They are (for the most part) doing the best they can in a thoroughly
untenable situation. There are exceptions - gross exceptions, like
Haditha - but those are not the norm. In general, I don't believe even
the officers who acted to cover up the massacre there are the norm.
(God, I hope not.)

 And I haven't seen any evidence that Aaron has participated in any such
crimes. I'm not too fond of Aaron's manner, debating tactics, or political
positions in general, but I sure as hell don't think he's a war
criminal.

 Note that some of the crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan *are*
systemic and the result of both deliberate malfeasance and gross
incompetance all the way up to the commander-in-chief, e.g. Abu Ghraib
and the related prison scandals.

> The American public is so thoroughly propagandized by the
> so-called "journalists" who, have admitted recently that
> they don't even care WHAT the truth is, as long as the story
> "fits the 'larger picture'"....

 I'm not even sure what quote you're referring to (cite, please?) but
let's just say I strongly doubt it comes from "journalists" in general.

> What's going on here is a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran,
> with moderate assistance to them from Syria.

 And, as I've stated before, we'd be waging approximately the same
war in Afghanistan now if we'd stuck around there and not given it up
for this little adventure in Iraq. The terrain (as you've pointed out)
is not as favorable but Afghanistan had several other practical
advantages that outweighed this:

 1. A local population that already wasn't terribly impressed with
    fundamentalist Islamic rule and was willing to try something else.

 2. Said local population had recent memories of the U.S. helping them
    against the Soviet incursion. We weren't exactly doing it out of the
    sheer goodness of our hearts, but we *were* on their side.

 3. We had direct, well-supported and internationally recognized moral
    authority to invade Afghanistan, given 9/11. We'd have had far more
    support in troops and materiel from our allies if we'd stayed in that
    country.

 4. The country's infrastructure was already in a shambles. This doesn't
    sound like an advantage until you realize that *any* improvements we
    could make would be positively regarded. Compare this with Iraq now,
    where the general standard of infrastructure is *well* below the state
    before we invaded.

 5. As a corollary to 4, the government organization was very limited,
    basically consisting of local warlords. Unlike insurgents, they tend
    to have a limited range of operations, and are more vulnerable to
    traditional military tactics. Plus, they can be bought or otherwise
    led into joining the new government.

 6. Hey, we might actually have captured Bin Laden! You know, the guy who
    actually *did* have something to do with 9/11?

> The quickest way to end the problems here in Baghdad and the
> rest of the ocuntry would be to put the Iranian government
> to work digging out of several hundred square miles of
> a capital turned to rubble.

 Then it wouldn't be just Iran supporting terrorism in Iraq. It'd be
*every single country in the region*, at *increased levels*. A smashing
idea! (Literally...)

> But virtually ALL of the remaining problems in the mideast trace
> back to Tehran...because that's where the money flows from.

 And how does the money collect in Tehran in the first place? Oh, yeah,
that's right: we consume well over 100 billion gallons of gasoline per
year...

 Read to the end of this for a more practical (and historically
successful) strategy:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                            (313) 227-2317

 "Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
  would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
      - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Wed Jan  3 15:24:23 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:24:23 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: Aaron Kulkis

> How many stories have they been caught fabricating recently,
> and we're talking NATIONAL news organizations, just because
> the story "fit the larger picture" that they are trying to
> indoctrinate the public with.

 You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
I can see. Hint hint.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317

           My other computer is your Windows machine.
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jan  3 17:42:01 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:42:01 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <459C3139.2080207@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>  You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
> I can see. Hint hint.
>
>  Sincerely,
>
>  Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317
>   
Well, there's Rathergate.

More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant that AP has 
grown fond of.

Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
Iraqi Ministry of Information. I believe the New York Times has gotten 
in a couple of licks on what's left of the concept of journalistic 
ethics as well although I'm not sure whether neo-anti-Semitism or the 
denial of global warming denial merits the bigger pie in the face.

Allen


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Thu Jan  4 08:12:29 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:12:29 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B5C@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: allen
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
> >  You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
> > I can see. Hint hint.

> Well, there's Rathergate.

 Yeah, that was stupid. It was also quickly exposed as such. And it served as a
handy distraction from the fact that no one's been able to substantiate Bush's
Guard service to any significant degree.

> More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant 
> that AP has grown fond of.

 You didn't read up on the followup there, did you?

 http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/12/michelle_malkin.html

> Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
> Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
> Iraqi Ministry of Information.

 I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.

> I believe the New York Times has gotten in a couple of licks on what's left
> of the concept of journalistic ethics as well although I'm not sure whether
> neo-anti-Semitism or the denial of global warming denial merits the bigger
> pie in the face.

 Um, again, actual examples would be helpful here. Links to stories, for
example?

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                 (313) 227-2317

 "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
                              Adlai Stevenson
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jan  4 17:32:32 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:32:32 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B5C@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B5C@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <459D8080.7020608@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>  Yeah, that was stupid. It was also quickly exposed as such. And it served as a
> handy distraction from the fact that no one's been able to substantiate Bush's
> Guard service to any significant degree.
>
>   
Ah, a point of agreement. More then that though, it was phenomenally 
arrogant.

It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience. Everyone 
involved had *way* too much time on the job for either to be a 
reasonable explanation. The temptation to serve political ends overcame 
Sagan's dictum and arrogance precluded consideration of professional 
repercussions.

Also, the episode wasn't *just* exposed, it was exposed by amateurs with 
no experience or resources, not competing professionals with plenty of 
both. Given the importance of the story that bespeaks a remarkably 
uninterested profession. For either ethical or professional reasons 
other members of the journalistic profession should have been on the 
story like flies on a turd. But they weren't. If it wasn't for "just 
folks" Dan Rather might have skated away from the punishment for his 
unprofessional conduct in the same way Walter Cronkite managed to a 
couple of decades earlier.

Also, why is distraction from nothing, handy? Remember, no evidence just 
rumors, clumsy forgery and ethically challenged news people.

The delightful irony is that even the rumors are now emasculated 
courtesy of an over-zealous Democratic activist and over-eager media 
professionals. Who says there's no justice?

>> More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant 
>> that AP has grown fond of.
>>     
>
>  You didn't read up on the followup there, did you?
>
>  http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/12/michelle_malkin.html
>
>   
( Majikthise? She's a fetching blossom but claiming some part of her 
anatomy to be endowed with magical powers? I suppose I'll have to take 
that on faith.)

Which is both long on triumph, short on Iraqi police lieutenants and 
completely ignores AP's single-sourcing a controversial story with 
nothing in the way of justification for extending this source a lick of 
credence.
>> Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
>> Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
>> Iraqi Ministry of Information.
>>     
>
>  I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.
>
>   
I'll see your majicthise, so to speak, and raise you a SusanShelley:

http://www.extremeink.com/susan/cnn.htm

That ought to be enough detail to refresh your memory and also to put 
you on the trail of more substantive commentary if you choose to pursue it.

>> I believe the New York Times has gotten in a couple of licks on what's left
>> of the concept of journalistic ethics as well although I'm not sure whether
>> neo-anti-Semitism or the denial of global warming denial merits the bigger
>> pie in the face.
>>     
>
>  Um, again, actual examples would be helpful here. Links to stories, for
> example?
>
>   
Sorry, the volume of crimes reduces individual transgressions to 
indistinguishableness. I will do my best to bring new outrages to your 
attention in the future however.

>  Sincerely,
>
>  Ray Ingles                                                 (313) 227-2317
>
>  "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
>                               Adlai Stevenson
>   
An unexpectedly revelatory sig.


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Fri Jan  5 14:44:58 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:44:58 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B66@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: allen

> It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience.

 As I said, it was stupid.

> Given the importance of the story that bespeaks a remarkably 
> uninterested profession. For either ethical or professional reasons 
> other members of the journalistic profession should have been on the 
> story like flies on a turd.

 Um, that's a rather slanted presentation of the actual timeline. The
blogs move a lot faster than the journalists, because of their very
natures. Doesn't mean that the so-called 'MSM' didn't investigate, and
*report*, too.

> Also, why is distraction from nothing, handy? Remember, no evidence just 
> rumors, clumsy forgery and ethically challenged news people.

 No, I was pointing to the utter lack of positive evidence for Bush
actually completing his National Guard service, the kind of evidence that
other people can produce.

 Positive evidence would make for a better case, and the desire for that
corrupted Rather's judgement. But the *lack* of evidence is also highly
suggestive.

> Which is both long on triumph, short on Iraqi police lieutenants and 
> completely ignores AP's single-sourcing a controversial story with 
> nothing in the way of justification for extending this source a lick of 
> credence.

 Whereas single-sourced stories that you *approve* of...

 Consider the single source of the U. S. Military on Haditha:

 "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a
roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen
attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and marines
returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

 You might want to check on recent developments in the "Jamil Hussein"
front.

>  I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.
>   
> I'll see your majicthise, so to speak, and raise you a SusanShelley:

> http://www.extremeink.com/susan/cnn.htm

> That ought to be enough detail to refresh your memory and also to put 
> you on the trail of more substantive commentary if you choose to pursue it.

 Indeed. Commentary like this, perhaps?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/jordan_4-17.pdf

 "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
conservative."

 I think you misunderstand me. I'm not a fan of the media in general. I just
don't think it's as simple as having a "liberal" or "conservative" bias.
(Well, except Fox, or Mother Jones, or what have you. They really do have an
explicit bias.) What the general media is biased towards is making money. That
results in more complicated distortions than just 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

> Sorry, the volume of crimes reduces individual transgressions to 
> indistinguishableness. I will do my best to bring new outrages to your 
> attention in the future however.

 Particularly the "neo-anti-Semitism" charge. For example, I don't think
our (the United States') long-term interests are served by our staunch
support of Israel. I'd be quite happy to reduce our dependence on oil and
leave them to fend for themselves. (If the environment there is too inimical,
maybe they could move to South America, a proposal that was floated back in
the 1940's when Israel was being created.)

 Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?

> >  "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
> >                               Adlai Stevenson
> An unexpectedly revelatory sig.

 "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 - Inigo Montoya.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                  (313) 227-2317

 "The [Bush] administration has already established that it has engaged in
 things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people
   after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war
  crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the
  very thing that we once prosecuted people for." - Jonathan Turley, George
             Washington University Constitutional Law Professor
                   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jan  5 21:37:12 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:37:12 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B66@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B66@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <459F0B58.4020006@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>
>> It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience.
>>     
>
>  As I said, it was stupid.
>
>   
Nope. Dan Rather, whatever his shortcomings, isn't stupid. He's 
arrogant, unprofessional and petty but he's not stupid. Minimizing the 
transgression by ascribing it to stupidity doesn't properly encompass 
the scope and seriousness of that transgression.

He sought to use the access to the public his job granted as a means of 
pursuing his own political preferences, showing no regard for the tenets 
of his profession, the democratic process and a disregard for the truth 
that no one should have to bear. Consider, the most favorable 
explanation for Rather's behavior is that he was incompetent to do his job.
>> Given the importance of the story that bespeaks a remarkably 
>> uninterested profession. For either ethical or professional reasons 
>> other members of the journalistic profession should have been on the 
>> story like flies on a turd.
>>     
>
>  Um, that's a rather slanted presentation of the actual timeline. The
> blogs move a lot faster than the journalists, because of their very
> natures. Doesn't mean that the so-called 'MSM' didn't investigate, and
> *report*, too.
>
>   
As I recall, the story was replayed with nothing in the way of 
contradiction and no evidence of competitive investigation until the guy 
with Microsoft Word on his computer put up the infamous jpg making it 
all but impossible to ignore questions of the credibility of the story.
>> Also, why is distraction from nothing, handy? Remember, no evidence just 
>> rumors, clumsy forgery and ethically challenged news people.
>>     
>
>  No, I was pointing to the utter lack of positive evidence for Bush
> actually completing his National Guard service, the kind of evidence that
> other people can produce.
>
>  Positive evidence would make for a better case, and the desire for that
> corrupted Rather's judgement. But the *lack* of evidence is also highly
> suggestive.
>
>   
"Positive evidence"? Would that be the sort of evidence that would prove 
innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Objection, your honor!
>> Which is both long on triumph, short on Iraqi police lieutenants and 
>> completely ignores AP's single-sourcing a controversial story with 
>> nothing in the way of justification for extending this source a lick of 
>> credence.
>>     
>
>  Whereas single-sourced stories that you *approve* of...
>
>  Consider the single source of the U. S. Military on Haditha:
>
>  "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a
> roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen
> attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and marines
> returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."
>
>  You might want to check on recent developments in the "Jamil Hussein"
> front.
>
>   
You're kind of missing the point. AP would like to present themselves as 
credible, even-handed, thorough. But that goal's hardly achieved if 
they're no better as a source of information then the U.S. military 
which is not a news agency.

AP has to do a better job of gathering/supporting their reportage if 
they're to be seen as a better source of information then an agency of 
government they propose to investigate. They have to present, on a 
continuing basis, proof that they're deserving of the trust of people 
who depend on them for impartial, professional journalism. If they're no 
better then the U.S. military in this regard then there's essentially no 
purpose for their continued existence.

And I have been following recent developments about Jamil Hussein. AP's 
odor isn't improving. It's still looking very much like the best case 
scenario for AP is that AP is run by inept amateurs. From there things 
go downhill rapidly with AP's consciously aiding and abetting terrorists 
being among the possibilities.
>>  I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.
>>   
>> I'll see your majicthise, so to speak, and raise you a SusanShelley:
>>     
>
>   
>> http://www.extremeink.com/susan/cnn.htm
>>     
>
>   
>> That ought to be enough detail to refresh your memory and also to put 
>> you on the trail of more substantive commentary if you choose to pursue it.
>>     
>
>  Indeed. Commentary like this, perhaps?
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/jordan_4-17.pdf
>
>  "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
> conservative."
>
>   
Nope. The guy's like a bad cop or a pedophile priest, trading on the 
authority and trust that comes with the office for personal gain, to 
escape personal responsibility, without regard to the damage the 
transgression does to the entire profession. Like the two examples I 
cited, Jordan has no place in the profession.

>  I think you misunderstand me. I'm not a fan of the media in general. I just
> don't think it's as simple as having a "liberal" or "conservative" bias.
> (Well, except Fox, or Mother Jones, or what have you. They really do have an
> explicit bias.) 
Mother Jones and various other, similar publications make no bones about 
their partisanship although they prefer to cloak their bias in what they 
perceive as noble causes. Fox, and CNN, AP, CBS, ABC, the New York Times 
and Washington Post lay claim to the title of journalism, the clear 
definition of which requires a ruthless disregard of personal bias. CNN, 
AP and CBS have, by the actions of important employees or indefensible 
actions by unnamed employees, diluted their claim to be journalistic 
organizations. Whether ineptitude or bias, either erodes their claim on 
public trust.

If you want to throw Fox into that group you'll have to provide examples 
of similarly egregious behavior.

> What the general media is biased towards is making money. That
> results in more complicated distortions than just 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
>   
The general damned near everything is biased toward making money. Other 
then hobbies and charities, what else is there?

Of course they're "biased" towards making money. Those organizations 
that weren't collected their Darwin prize and are no longer heard from.

The neat thing about capitalism, and it works just as brilliantly in the 
journalism profession as anywhere else, is that the hoi-polloi decide, 
collectively, on the continued survival of their betters.

The reason, ultimately, that Dan Rather decided to retire a year early 
isn't because of his ethical transgression but because the damage he'd 
done to the credibility, the *market*value*, of the CBS brand which, 
after all, is dependent on people having some reason to believe that 
what Dan Rather or his successors, tells them has been subject to the 
attention of thoughtful, capable adults who take seriously their 
responsibility to inform the public without regard to their personal 
agenda. Rather's crime, whether due to ineptitude or bias was to 
undercut that belief and with it the value of CBS stock.
>> Sorry, the volume of crimes reduces individual transgressions to 
>> indistinguishableness. I will do my best to bring new outrages to your 
>> attention in the future however.
>>     
>
>  Particularly the "neo-anti-Semitism" charge. For example, I don't think
> our (the United States') long-term interests are served by our staunch
> support of Israel. I'd be quite happy to reduce our dependence on oil and
> leave them to fend for themselves. (If the environment there is too inimical,
> maybe they could move to South America, a proposal that was floated back in
> the 1940's when Israel was being created.)
>   
You're free to believe that but I'd be interested to know what other 
regimes in the area might have a confluence of interest with the U.S. 
other then on a purely mercantile basis? The only other nation in the 
area with a passing acquaintance with democracy is Egypt and that'd be a 
pretty tenuous acquaintanceship. For the rest it's a choice between a 
moderately repressive monarchy, a virulently repressive monarchy, a 
repressive theocracy or various flavors of "people's" republics. There's 
simply no other nations in the region with which to have a friendly 
relationship.

Are you proposing that nations actively undermining or barely tolerant 
of U.S. interests be treated no differently from the single nation in 
the region with which the U.S. does share values and goals?

As for reducing our dependence on oil, I suggest you take a trip up to 
Mackinac Island to revisit the halcyon days that preceded that dependence.
>  Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?
>   
Yup.
>>>  "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
>>>                               Adlai Stevenson
>>>       
>> An unexpectedly revelatory sig.
>>     
>
>  "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
>  - Inigo Montoya.
>   
The move from disdainful intellectual to fictional swordsman as a source 
of quotes is a move in the right direction but that's more a function of 
how poorly you started then how far you've come.


From akulkis at hotpop.com  Fri Jan  5 21:42:17 2007
From: akulkis at hotpop.com (Aaron Kulkis)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:42:17 +0300
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <459C3139.2080207@sbcglobal.net>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
	<459C3139.2080207@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <459F0C89.3060809@hotpop.com>

allen wrote:
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>  You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
>> I can see. Hint hint.
>>
>>  Sincerely,
>>
>>  Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317
>>   
> Well, there's Rathergate.
> 
> More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant that AP has 
> grown fond of.
> 


Recently, also AP made up a story about 6 Shi'ites being burned alive
at a Sunni mosque in downtown Baghdad...  quoting anonymous sources.
Both US Army and Iraqi Police said we have no knowledge of this --
can you get some specific information.

AP, instead of responding with information which could be followed up
and investigated, did the "how dare you try to censor us" scheme.

Sorry, those of us not in the journalism business expect that when
a reporter reports something, that he or she has actual, firsthand
knowledge of what he's reporting, not merely repeating whatever
propaganda shows up in the fax machine...


> Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
> Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
> Iraqi Ministry of Information. I believe the New York Times has gotten 
> in a couple of licks on what's left of the concept of journalistic 
> ethics as well although I'm not sure whether neo-anti-Semitism or the 
> denial of global warming denial merits the bigger pie in the face.
> 
> Allen



From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Mon Jan  8 09:30:45 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:30:45 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B68@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: Aaron Kulkis

> > More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant 
> > that AP has grown fond of.
> 
> Recently, also AP made up a story about 6 Shi'ites being burned alive
> at a Sunni mosque in downtown Baghdad...  quoting anonymous sources.
> Both US Army and Iraqi Police said we have no knowledge of this --
> can you get some specific information.

 Um... no. they didn't quote anonymous sources, they quoted the "illusive
[sic] Iraqui police lieutenant". That's the story we're talking about.

> AP, instead of responding with information which could be followed up
> and investigated, did the "how dare you try to censor us" scheme.

 Um... no, they didn't. They stood by their story, insisted that Jamil
Hussien (their main source) exists, and found other witnesses. And, gee,
it turns out that the guy really *does* exist, despite initial denial by
Iraqi officials.

 At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, at least tangentially, I direct
your attention here:

 http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001259.html

> Sorry, those of us not in the journalism business expect that when
> a reporter reports something, that he or she has actual, firsthand
> knowledge of what he's reporting

 Again: Um... no. If you were right... why bother with interviews?

> not merely repeating whatever propaganda shows up in the fax machine...

 Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that you're right. We'll
assume (though this is by no means established) that AP was, in fact,
lax in this matter and put too much credence in a source of dubious
reliability.

 Now... what substantive difference does this make? Are you alleging
that the situation in Iraq is being badly reported overall? If so, in
what way?

 Is the level of violence being exaggerated? If so, in what way? Aside
from terminology, I don't see anything like an order-of-magnitude
difference between what's reported in the "MSM" and, say, what you
read here:

 http://www.usafns.com/date-_from_the_pentagon.shtml

 Are positive steps not being reported? Again, I don't see any real
evidence of that. What's the biggest positive sign in Iraq that you
think hasn't been highlighted?

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                        (313) 227-2317

 "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at
              the results." -- Winston Churchill
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Mon Jan  8 11:08:28 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:08:28 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B69@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>

> From: allen
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
> >  As I said, it was stupid.

> Nope. Dan Rather, whatever his shortcomings, isn't stupid. He's 
> arrogant, unprofessional and petty but he's not stupid. Minimizing the 
> transgression by ascribing it to stupidity doesn't properly encompass 
> the scope and seriousness of that transgression.

 Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.
On the other hand, one good thing about the U.S. is that, at least
sometimes, stupid mistakes by those in positions of authority actually
have lead to negative consequences for them. Nixon had to resign, and
so did Rather.

> >  Um, that's a rather slanted presentation of the actual timeline. The
> > blogs move a lot faster than the journalists, because of their very
> > natures. Doesn't mean that the so-called 'MSM' didn't investigate, and
> > *report*, too.

> As I recall, the story was replayed with nothing in the way of 
> contradiction and no evidence of competitive investigation until the guy 
> with Microsoft Word on his computer put up the infamous jpg making it 
> all but impossible to ignore questions of the credibility of 
> the story.

 Not according to this:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

 "The initial skepticism appeared in posts by Buckhead also known as Harry W.
MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such
as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation and who had
helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment
of President Bill Clinton.


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jan  8 15:50:55 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:50:55 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B69@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B69@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <45A2AEAF.8020104@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: allen
>> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>     
>>>  As I said, it was stupid.
>>>       
>
>   
>> Nope. Dan Rather, whatever his shortcomings, isn't stupid. He's 
>> arrogant, unprofessional and petty but he's not stupid. Minimizing the 
>> transgression by ascribing it to stupidity doesn't properly encompass 
>> the scope and seriousness of that transgression.
>>     
>
>  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.
> On the other hand, one good thing about the U.S. is that, at least
> sometimes, stupid mistakes by those in positions of authority actually
> have lead to negative consequences for them. Nixon had to resign, and
> so did Rather.
>   
As I wrote; arrogant, unprofessional and petty. Applicable to Rather 
when he was finally caught as Nixon unless you're using the Forrest Gump 
definition of "stupid".

You ought to read the links you dig up though. Since the subject under 
discussion is the left-wing slant in the mainstream media, the 
information that:

"The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."

suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
stupid does" was catching around CBS.
>  Not according to this:
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate
>
>  "The initial skepticism appeared in posts by Buckhead also known as Harry W.
> MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such
> as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation and who had
> helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment
> of President Bill Clinton.
>
> >From there, the story was picked up by the Drudge Report and broke into mass
> media outlets, including the Associated Press and the major television news
> networks, as well as getting serious attention from conservative writers such
> as National Review Online's Jim Geraghty. The first newspaper article questioning
> the documents appeared in The Washington Post on September 10. However, the
> September 9 edition of the American Broadcasting Company's Nightline made mention
> of the controversy, along with an article on the ABC News website."
>
>  The CBS broadcast was on September 8th.
>
>   
Hardly a comprehensive review of the episode. The Wikipedia article 
doesn't, for instance, identify whether it was Dan Rather's professional 
misconduct, the validity of the documents or the temerity of mere 
bloggers that the Washington Post was covering. *One* controversy, as I 
recall, was whether pajama-wearing bloggers were inherently noncredible 
regardless of the quality of their journalism and evidence and 
microphone-wearing journalists were unquestionably credible.
>> "Positive evidence"? Would that be the sort of evidence that 
>> would prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Objection, your honor!
>>     
>
>  Y'know, my phrasing there was ambiguous. There are two interesting types
> of evidence here. The allegation is that "Bush did not complete his National
> Guard duties statisfactoraly but was honorably discharged anyway."
>
>  1. As I stated, there's no actual evidence of Bush doing so. The kind of
> paperwork that the vast majority of Guard veterans can produce... he can't.
> This is negative evidence. Despite a strong political motivation to produce
> it, it just hasn't appeared.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
>
>  2. Rather was looking for positive evidence of Bush failing to fulfill his
> duties - that is to say, evidence of *not* doing so rather than a lack of
> evidence of doing so. He was stupid about how he vetted such evidence, though,
> and he was conned because he failed to check his facts properly.
>
>   
I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.

If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do. If you 
can't find proof that Bush did something wrong, charge him with not 
having enough proof that he did everything right.
>> You're kind of missing the point. AP would like to present themselves as 
>> credible, even-handed, thorough. But that goal's hardly achieved if 
>> they're no better as a source of information then the U.S. military 
>> which is not a news agency.
>>     
>
>  Ah, but we haven't established that they are not. The police lieutenant
> actually exists and has been confirmed. Other witnesses to the burning have
> been produced. Not all the facts in the original story appear to be correct,
> I agree.
>
>  However, I do *not* see evidence of a deliberate attempt to falsify stories
> or even a lack of normal fact-checking here. I've had first-hand knowledge of
> a few events that have made it into a news story. In *no* case were the events
> as reported 100% correct. What's your experience in this area?
>
>   
That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
absence of evidence of bias.

The only defense news organizations have against charges of bias, or 
should have, is punctilious adherence to the canons of the profession. 
That defense was obviated for some considerable length of time as TV 
news concentrated short-cycle news-disseminating power in the hands a 
very few news organizations and that built upon the dilution of the 
journalistic ethic by the promotion of advocacy journalism as typified 
by Walter Duranty and later, Walter Cronkite.

You don't have to defend your credibility when the truth is whatever 
comes out of your typewriter or out of your mouth.
>>>  "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
>>> conservative."
>>>   
>>>       
>> Nope. The guy's like a bad cop or a pedophile priest, trading on the 
>> authority and trust that comes with the office for personal gain, to 
>> escape personal responsibility, without regard to the damage the 
>> transgression does to the entire profession. Like the two examples I 
>> cited, Jordan has no place in the profession.
>>     
>
>  Uh, gee, and "liberal and conservative" alike *agree* with you.
>
>   
Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
profession. That he does is a mark against the profession although that 
clearly doesn't trouble those who chose to hire/deal with him. If 
liberal and conservative commentators agreed that a bad cop done wrong 
we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. That's not the same thing as 
drawing the conclusion that the theoretical cop or the very real Eason 
Jordan has no business plying their previous trade. In both cases 
they've proven themselves unqualified.
>> If you want to throw Fox into that group you'll have to provide examples 
>> of similarly egregious behavior.
>>     
>
>  I know of no other major news organization that has defended *in court* their
> right to distort news and outright lie:
>
>  http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
>
>   
No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
the news and outright lie so you're still in need of some case of 
similarly egregious behavior. And please, no more sites like the one you 
linked. I spend some time on these replies and crudely propagandistic 
sites such as the one you linked suggest a lack of regard for that effort.
>  None that I know of. But if we didn't need the oil there we wouldn't have
> to care. Supporting Israel is like building a greenhouse to plant roses in
> Antarctica. One has to wonder at the expense, and whether the benefits
> justify it. We might help them out of humanitarian impulses but, well, we
> don't have a great record there. I mean, it's a shame Darfour doesn't have
> any oil...
>
>   
It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
causation via repetition. It's not as if Israel shares a border or has 
ever invaded an oil-producing Arab nation. If anything, the "it's all 
about the oil" argument directs U.S. interest to side with Arab, 
oil-producing nations, not Israel. At no time since the founding of 
Israel have Arab oil fields been under threat from the Israeli military 
or from the U.S. military.

As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.
>  I don't wish Israel ill per se but I don't see why (aside from convenient
> bases near the oil) *we* need to pony up the kind of dough (not to mention
> political capital) we have been to maintain them. If their situation is
> that untenable, well, like I said they could probably buy a *lot* of land
> in South America.
>   
You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, geographic 
neighborhood of Israel. If anything, the presence of Israel has served 
to maintain peace in the Mideast since, as a lightning rod for 
traditional Arab enmities as exemplified by the current Sunni-Shiite 
problems in Iraq, Israel has prevented more widespread conflict from 
erupting.

As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
petroleum reserves. If the cost of, relative, peace in the Mideast is 
American dollars and Israeli blood then both are well spent. Among the 
potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder in the 
Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
to regional pressures.
>   
>> The only other nation in the area with a passing acquaintance with democracy
>> is Egypt and that'd be a pretty tenuous acquaintanceship. For the rest it's
>> a choice between a moderately repressive monarchy, a virulently repressive
>> monarchy, a repressive theocracy or various flavors of "people's" republics.
>> There's simply no other nations in the region with which to have a friendly 
>> relationship.
>>     
>
>  You're right, but we support those regimes anyway, because they have the oil.
> We cozy up to thugocracies like, say, Iraq in the 1980s. We organize coups to
> overthrow democratically elected governments to install unpopular monarchies
> like, say, Iran. (Boy, *that* sure paid off for us, didn't it?) We support the
> Saudi regime even as they violently repress their own population and work to
> redirect the blame toward us. (And gee, that really paid off for the people in
> the World Trade Center, didn't it? What nationality were 15 of the 19 hijackers
> again?) 
>   
You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
balance I don't find all that much to fault. The U.S. no more overthrew 
the democratically elected government of Iran then a shout is an 
avalanche. Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes, 
unignorable even then, not only did the CIA save hundreds of thousands 
of Iranian lives but the lives of those a communist Iran would have 
killed as part of the process of establishing a people's paradise in the 
neighboring countries.

And yeah, overthrowing the communist regime in Iran did pay off quite 
well for us for quite a while. Of course, there's no victory so total 
that it can't be undone by an incompetent and Jimmy Carter was every bit 
of that.

You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
Israel.
>> Are you proposing that nations actively undermining or barely tolerant 
>> of U.S. interests be treated no differently from the single nation in 
>> the region with which the U.S. does share values and goals?
>>     
>
>  They'd have a lot less ability to mess with us if we weren't giving them
> hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And they wouldn't have quite the same
> motivation if we weren't helping to 'stabilize' the region by supporting
> violent thugocracies.
>
>   
Which doesn't really answer the question.

Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
values and goals?

>  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
> the terrorists those regions spawn. Here, let me pop another .sig quote in
> here:
>
>  "U.S. planes have thus far showered defoliant on more than 200,000
>   acres, killing not just coca plants but entire ecosystems: damaging
>   legitimate crops, poisoning water supplies, killing fish and livestock,
>   uprooting entire villages, and causing people to suffer fevers,
>   diarrhea, allergies and rashes.
>
>   And that's why they hate us: because, to keep drugs out of Bobby
>   Brown's glove box, we kill peasants in Putumayo. If we did this kind
>   of thing to the Arabs, they'd actually have the kind of beef with us
>   that they think they do."
>
>       - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
>
>   
Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
would you characterize your views?

And you don't do yourself any credit by quoting Bill Maher. Whatever the 
shortcomings of the anti-drug policy of the past few decades, and they 
are manifold, they won't be redressed by smirking mirror-gazers like Maher.

>  I just think it'd be awfully nice to produce the kind of tech that would
> drastically reduce our dependency on oil. Such tech would spread, too. And
> then we'd have a similarly drastic drop in the price of oil. At that point
> I'd like to see how well people would like an Islamic theocracy in a poor
> economy. I figure within a decade the whole area would look like Afghanistan
> under the Taliban.
>
>  Read this article I quoted at Aaron five days ago on this list:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full
>
>  See below for some ideas to keep in mind when you read about the
> "Manhattan Project" proposal.
>
>   
I don't. The Manhattan Project made sense in the context of a world-wide 
conflict but other then survival the only reason to develop technology 
is to make an honest buck. Since all these tedious "alternative" energy 
projects are elevated far above vulgar considerations of profit and 
there's no war in the offing, the only reason for the development of 
alternative energy sources are the conceits of the wealthy. When the 
technology makes sense, i.e. it solves a problem people don't have to 
have their arm twisted to acknowledge, subsidies, penalties, trading 
credits and regulatory agencies won't be necessary. People'll be lining 
up to get access to the technology waving fists full of dollars, euros 
or renminbis.
>> As for reducing our dependence on oil, I suggest you take a trip up to 
>> Mackinac Island to revisit the halcyon days that preceded that dependence.
>>  I'm somewhat flummoxed here. Do you *really* believe that the only alternative
>> to the Hummer is an agrarian economy? On the other hand, I find it hard to
>> credit that you'd use so clumsy a rhetorical ploy. I really don't know what to
>> think, to be honest.
>>     
(friggin' mailreader editor....

The agrarian economy *is* the alternative not to the Hummer but to free 
enterprise which results in, among other things, the Hummer.

The single source of wealth in the world is capitalism and the extent to 
which freedom of choice is circumscribed that's the extent to which we 
move back toward the doubtful benefits of an agrarian economy.


>>  Let's make things clear. I am not a Luddite, and I while I've enjoyed visiting
>> Macinac Island many times and hope to take my kids there again in the future,
>> I don't plan on living there. However, I can visualize quite a few alternatives
>> that let me keep my computer and car, but still drastically reduce our dependence
>> on foreign oil. Consider, for example, a quote from one of my .sigs that went out
>> when I quoted that boston.com article to Aaron:
>>
>>     
One of the things that's wrong with Mackinac Island is that it's so 
drastically sanitized so as not to be too offensive to delicate, modern 
sensibilities. If you want to give your kids an idea of how delightful 
cars are you'll have to find someplace where the urine-soaked horse 
manure is three feet thick.

With that, you should pardon the expression, foundation, you can 
experience the full effect of a muscle-powered economy. I recommend 
cooler weather for those of a more delicate constitution but for the 
full effect a week or so of wet weather is necessary - the ubiquity of 
board sidewalks in TV western towns takes on a whole, new importance - 
followed by a couple of weeks of warm, dry weather.

I recommend "The good old days--they were terrible!" by Otto Bettmann. 
You won't ever look at a covered dish the same way again.

>>  "Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
>>   would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
>>       - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
>>
>>  We had austerity programs in WWII. Why not in the "War on Terror"?
>>
>>     
We also had enemy alien internment camps during World War II. Just how 
far do you want to go with the metaphor?

Besides, Rocket scientist Bill Maher probably hasn't heard the news, but 
GM thinks there's enough consumer interest in plug-in hybrids to make it 
a paying proposition. It might even be but it'll be GM money being 
squandered if GM is wrong. Since GM enjoys the mind-concentrating 
benefit of (organizational) hanging they'll be much more inclined then 
some ecological paladin to cut off a project that makes no economic sense.

I'll let you in on a nifty secret about plug-in hybrids that ought to 
set the hearts of all the greenies you know, aflutter.

One of the big problems with all of the various alternative energy 
schemes is that they're periodic, unpredictable or both. The sun rises 
and you get electricity, the sun sets you don't. The wind blows, you get 
electricity, the wind stops, you don't, etc. The dog that never seems to 
bark is what to do when the sun goes down, the temperature stays up and 
the wind stops blowing. That's when all the money that wasn't spent on 
energy storage, because it's so expensive, starts to pinch.

But, if you've got all those zillions of plug-in hybrids - look a couple 
of paragraphs up - drinking up electricity during the day you've got 
bags of electrical storage capacity for "free". Not really for free of 
course but available for any number of uses other then making the family 
jalopy putter silently around town.

Extend the utility, increase the value. If you can "top off" the buggy 
during the day when the sun's shining then you a way to market at least 
some of that periodic, unpredictable or both, electricity. Maybe even 
enough to make all those icky Arabs poor again not that I'm particularly 
thrilled by that.

>>  But we can go much further than this. How about investing in nuclear power?
>> Consider pebble-bed reactors which are *extremely* safe and scale well, even
>> in a modular fashion. What about more daring (at least politically, though not
>> in any engineering sense) ideas like using this (read the whole article for
>> full effect, including the note about disposing of the nuclear waste):
>>
>>  http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship7.htm
>>
>>  to launch these:
>>
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite
>>
>>  (Note that recent advances in solar cell technology have dramatically
>> increased the efficiency beyond the 28% quoted there. Also note the wikipedia
>> article assumes chemical-fueled lauch costs, not nuclear.)
>>
>>  These kinds of things were seriously proposed, and designs worked on, back
>> in the 1970s. We could do them *much* better now.
>>
>>     
Yeah, I've been reading about them for a while. There's quite a bit of 
development going on with gas-cooled pebble-bed reactors. Periodically I 
look up the Matsushita PBR that's supposed to go into operation in 
Galena, Alaska. Haven't heard anything about it for a while but it does 
look interesting.

As far as powersats goes, it's a matter first, of efficient orbital 
transport. That problem seems to be resolving itself although we're 
still pretty early on the development curve. Still, with the successful 
winning of the X-prize by Rutan, Alan ( no relation dammit) and company 
and the point-to-point pretensions of Richard Branson, along with the 
recent, successful flight of Blue Origin, Richard Bezos reprise of the 
late, lamented Delta Clipper, thins are, you should once again pardon 
the expression, looking up.
>>>  Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?
>>>       
>> Yup.
>>     
>
>  Ah. Not giving unconditional support for Israel equals active dislike of
> Jews. Right...
>
>   
It doesn't cost me anything nor do I court any danger in denouncing you 
so why not?
>> The move from disdainful intellectual to fictional swordsman as a source 
>> of quotes is a move in the right direction but that's more a function of 
>> how poorly you started then how far you've come.
>>     
>
>  Well, as long as we're being snide, how about one more disdainful
> intellectual... :->
>
>  Sincerely,
>
>  Ray Ingles                                    (313) 227-2317
>
>  "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
>                     - Bertrand Russell
>   
Russell would have been a great deal more convincing if he'd displayed 
immortality or used the word "we" at the appropriate place.

Allen

Uncle!


From tesral at comcast.net  Tue Jan  9 04:32:29 2007
From: tesral at comcast.net (Garry Stahl)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:32:29 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] DCG revival
Message-ID: <45A3612D.5020007@comcast.net>

I realize it has been close to a week since I reported.

The meeting went well.  The remaining membership agreed with my
suggestions as a last ditch attempt to save the club.

To wit:

Downriver Commodore Group is Officially a Retro computing group.

Dropping to one meeting a month.  This will be the first Wednesday in
the Month at 7:00 PM  Because of previous commitments we will have a
meeting on the third Wednesday in January, after this it will be a
single meeting a month.

Dues are now $30 a year, $25 for over 65. 


The January 17 meeting will be about seeing what club hardware is in
working condition and seeing what we have to do to render it working. 
Of major concern are the 1541 disk drives.  All of which are very old
and the belts will doubtless need replacing.


Meeting Schedule:

Jan 17:  Check out the hardware.
Feb 7:  To be announced
March 7  To be announced
April 4  To be announced

Don't think that "To be announced" means nothing happening.  However the
results of the next meeting will have a lot to do with what we do after
that.

-- 
Garry  AKA  --Phoenix--  Rising above the Flames.

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Star Trek mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur
The Olde Phoenix Inn Http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com



From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Tue Jan  9 10:31:17 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:31:17 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B6E@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: allen
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:

> >  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.

> "The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
> producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
> resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."
> 
> suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
> stupid does" was catching around CBS.

 And a lot of people were ejected in disgrace from Nixon's administration,
too. I just think it's funny that I compared Rather's actions to Nixon's,
and you appear to think that means I'm *going easy on Rather*.

> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

> Hardly a comprehensive review of the episode.

 Well, if you can find such a review, I'd like to see it. I've presented
my memories and that article, you've presented your memories.

> I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
> just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.

 Apparently we have some alternate-reality bridge going on here, and
you're responding to messages from selgnI yaR. I do in fact believe, based
on the evidence (both positive and negative) in the article that I linked
to, that it's extremely probable that Bush didn't really fulfill his
obligations to the National Guard, and used the Guard to avoid service in
Vietnam.

 That's not the same thing as finding 'something, anything, that'll stick
to him'. For that kind of thing, you'll need to look at, e.g. Kenneth Star.

 :->

> If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
> a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
> that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do.

 Um, there's more to it than that. Y'know, like I actually pointed out.

> That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
> organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
> important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
> innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
> enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
> evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
> absence of evidence of bias.

 And yet, I haven't seen anything produced that contradicts the overall
accuracy of, say, the situation in Iraq. So far, the 'poster boy' story
of bias (the "Jamil Hussein" affair) has been shown to be credible in
essentially all confirmable. What else ya got?

> Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
> profession. That he does is a mark against the profession

 And I *agree* with you. But, as I've said and you've apparently not
read, over and over again, I *don't* think that the media is unbiased.
I think it's biased towards 'whatever makes money', and further distorted
by deliberate attemtps to shape and spin coverage by all comers.

 What you apparently seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
"they're all liberals" or something. Which manifestly isn't true.

> No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
> the news and outright lie...

 Yes, they (in the person of their corporate parent) very definitely did.
They very *specifically* advanced that argument in court.

> ... so you're still in need of some case of similarly egregious behavior.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

 I fail to see why the *exact same type of evidence* that you believe
proves *liberal* bias in other media sources does not apply to Fox News.

> And please, no more sites like the one you linked.

 Okay, here's the actual court decision:

  http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

 I particularly recommend for your consideration the top of page 4.

> It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
> for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
> causation via repetition.

 Well, it made a lot more sense in the period of the cold war, when it
got started. But the relationship has continued after that, and it's
still a convenient ally for military actions in the region. (Which,
again, wouldn't be necessary if we didn't need the oil.)

> As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
> community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
> the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
> enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
> those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.

 Tell ya what. How about we treat them the same way - either Darfour and
Israel get the same level of help from the U.S., or else they get the help
from the U.N.

 My point, if it's not too much trouble to ask you to address it, is: Why
do we fund Israel at several million dollars per day but not Darfour?

> You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
> strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
> industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
> reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, 
> geographic neighborhood of Israel.

 Name, say, your top three other reasons.

> As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
> left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
> citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
> helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
> petroleum reserves.

 Well, if you're right, then they *don't* need us. So why are we supporting
them again, even at political cost to ourselves?

> Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder
> in the Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
> to regional pressures.

 A. Why is disorder there a threat to the human race? Be specific.

 B. Is support for Israel a band-aid solution that cannot work indefinitely?

> You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
> with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
> realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
> balance I don't find all that much to fault.

 So, we (based on probable disinformation from Britain) overthrow an elected
government to impose a monarchy in Iran. That blows up on us later, so we fund
and supply a brutal dictator in his war against our former puppet, providing
him with satellite photos and analysis (which gave him information he could use
later to try to hide things from us). Then he slips form his leash and attacks
another country and we have to go in and stomp him with a full military
offensive.

 Meanwhile we are funding and supplying radical Islamist insurgents against
the USSR in another country, helping them learn how to run a guerilla war
against a superior military force.

> The U.S. no more overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran
> then a shout is an avalanche.

 That's, uh, a rather charitable reading of events.

> Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes

 The actual allegations of the 'communism' of Mossadeq came from Britain,
upset about losing control of Iranian oil, and appear to have been largely
disinformation. It wasn't really the key reason, anyway - they were worried
about a weak Iran being taken over by the USSR.

 I might diffidently suggest a possible alternative - convince Britan to
work with Iran on their oil negotiations, maybe even accepting a
less-than-desirable settlement from the British perspective, but one which
would cement Iran's relations with the West. (The US could have brokered
such a deal - we'd already saved Iran from a Soviet incursion once.) Britan
just wanted the oil, though, and the US wasn't willing to hold to the courage
of their convictions. And that led to, well...

> You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
> petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
> good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
> Israel.

 *If* we're going to do that, we should get more for our efforts. The
Saudi regime is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:

 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer

 And the fallout from that will be much worse from our perspective... if
we're still dependent on their oil.

> Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
> engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
> same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
> values and goals?

 Oversimplification. We don't have to treat Israel "the same as" the rest
of the Middle East; what I object to is the *major* amount of *unconditional*
support we offer without any apparent consideration of the ROI or
consequences.

> >  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
> > the terrorists those regions spawn.

> Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
> would you characterize your views?

 To "understand all" is *not* to "forgive all". I want to understand why that
schmuck killed all those Amish girls a few months back, but not because I
feel any need to justify or forgive him. I want to know why he did it so that
we can maybe prevent such things from happening in the future. Ideally by
arranging things so that nobody *wants* to, but if that can't be helped then
at least by predicting where and when it might happen so as to head it off.

 In the same way, it sure seems to me we can see the political and social
forces at work that result in murderous bastards crashing planes into buildings
without believing those crimes are in any way 'justified'. If you're in a
looney bin with some whacko who attacks anyone who says 'cannoli', you'd want
to know that and you'd probably avoid talking about Italian desserts. Of if
you had to, you'd take precautions.

 I'm interested in efficiency. The best ROI. The Middle East is a screwed-up
area, with old hatreds and ideologies blown far out of proportion to their
actual importance by the flood of money coming in from oil. Most Western
countries developed their economic power gradually, via a process of
developing their social, political, educational, and scientific systems in
tandem. In the Middle East, you've got a basically midieval social and
political system suddenly flush with cash from the geological accident of
a (currently) extremely valuable resource being concentrated there. (A
similar situation obtains in Africa, too. See, e.g. 'blood diamonds'.)

 Reducing the flow of oil money would cut their economic, political, and
military power and, long-term, *reduce* tensions in the area. When you
can't grab power by just seizing control of one industry you have to
govern a little more carefully.

> Whatever the shortcomings of the anti-drug policy of the past few decades, 
> and they are manifold, they won't be redressed by smirking mirror-gazers
> like Maher.

 A court jester can, at times, serve a useful function by pointing out
socially-ignored truths. I'm not particularly fond of the guy personally
either, but he makes (some) good points. In a similar vein, I think
James Cameron is an aldulterous schmuck, but he makes good movies.

> The Manhattan Project made sense in the context of a world-wide 
> conflict but other then survival the only reason to develop technology 
> is to make an honest buck.

 But 'survival' *is* at stake! Let me qoute the noted expert Allen Majorovic:
"Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder in
the Mideast is right up there."

 If you actually believe what you wrote, then why *not* put some money into
mitigating that danger, *especially* when it promises *other* large economic
benefits?

> Since all these tedious "alternative" energy projects are elevated far above
> vulgar considerations of profit

 Sez who?

> and there's no war in the offing

 I thought were were at "war on terror"?

> The agrarian economy *is* the alternative not to the Hummer but to free 
> enterprise which results in, among other things, the Hummer.

 And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"...

> The single source of wealth in the world is capitalism and the extent to 
> which freedom of choice is circumscribed that's the extent to which we 
> move back toward the doubtful benefits of an agrarian economy.

> One of the things that's wrong with Mackinac Island is that it's so 
> drastically sanitized so as not to be too offensive to delicate, modern 
> sensibilities.

 No kidding. And I make no pretensions that my weekend camping trips are
anything like actual wilderness survival. But they can still serve an
educational role, in the proper context.

> I recommend "The good old days--they were terrible!" by Otto Bettmann. 
> You won't ever look at a covered dish the same way again.

 I wouldn't be surprised. I'll put that on my wish list. As I *said*,
I'm no Luddite.

> >>  We had austerity programs in WWII. Why not in the "War on Terror"?

> We also had enemy alien internment camps during World War II. 
> Just how far do you want to go with the metaphor?

 Ah, so you think the austerity programs in WWII were a mistake too?
Why?

> One of the big problems with all of the various alternative energy 
> schemes is that they're periodic, unpredictable or both. The 
> sun rises and you get electricity, the sun sets you don't.

 Um, that's why I specifically proposed powersats. Not "all" of the
schemes fall into your classification.

> The dog that never seems to bark is what to do when the sun goes
> down, the temperature stays up and the wind stops blowing. That's
> when all the money that wasn't spent on energy storage, because
> it's so expensive, starts to pinch.

 Of course, generally energy use *plummets* at night, so that puts some
limits on the problem. And energy storage can be cheap... if you store
enough of it. You can get surprisingly good efficiency by pumping water
uphill during the day and running a hydroelectric turbine at night.

> Extend the utility, increase the value. If you can "top off" the buggy 
> during the day when the sun's shining then you a way to market at least 
> some of that periodic, unpredictable or both, electricity.

 Sounds good to me.

> As far as powersats goes, it's a matter first, of efficient orbital 
> transport. That problem seems to be resolving itself...

 But we won't get there with chemical rockets. They just don't have the
energy/mass we need. We need nuclear rockets. At that point space becomes
*dramatically* more economical, and huge new markets and resources become
available.

 But that can't be done without government help. And for a reason that no
Libertarian can disagree with - you need nuclear material to work with,
and (for reasons of national security) that must be tightly controlled.
Enriched Uranium hexafluoride isn't something you want casually available.

 So, what exactly *are* your objections to such a 'Manhattan Project'? Be
as specific as possible, please.

> >  Ah. Not giving unconditional support for Israel equals active dislike of
> > Jews. Right...

> It doesn't cost me anything

 I suppose if you don't value your credibility it doesn't cost you anything.

> nor do I court any danger in denouncing you 

 Nice that you accept unreservedly that I will behave in a civilized fashion
but feel no apparent desire to reciprocate.

> so why not?

 Because it's obviously false and simply a transparent, baselese rhetorical
ploy?

> >  "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
> >                     - Bertrand Russell
> >   
> Russell would have been a great deal more convincing if he'd displayed 
> immortality or used the word "we" at the appropriate place.

 Ah, the primary author of "Principia Mathematica" didn't think? A guy
who went from confirmed racist to condemning racism never thought? I
wonder what 'thoughts' you've come up with? :->

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                   (313) 227-2317

 "It will be generally found that those who sneer habitually at human nature
 and affect to despise it, are among its worst and least pleasant examples."
                            - Charles Dickens
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan  9 13:57:51 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:57:51 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B6E@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B6E@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <45A3E5AF.7080403@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: allen
>> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>     
>>>  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.
>>>       
>> "The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
>> producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
>> resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."
>>
>> suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
>> stupid does" was catching around CBS.
>>     
>
>  And a lot of people were ejected in disgrace from Nixon's administration,
> too. I just think it's funny that I compared Rather's actions to Nixon's,
> and you appear to think that means I'm *going easy on Rather*.
>
>   
Oh, I don't think you're going easy on Rather so much as the industry 
and his employer went easy on him.

The damage Rather did to CBS' credibility and indeed the credibility of 
the industry certainly warranted a more dramatic end to his career then 
retiring a bit earlier then planned. But that's not what happened. What 
should have been a watershed - a high-ranking, experienced newsman 
caught using his position to advance a personal political agenda and in 
an insultingly clumsy manner at that - seems to have had essentially no 
effect on the industry at all as evidenced by the recent AP revelation.
>> I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
>> just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.
>>     
>
>  Apparently we have some alternate-reality bridge going on here, and
> you're responding to messages from selgnI yaR. I do in fact believe, based
> on the evidence (both positive and negative) in the article that I linked
> to, that it's extremely probable that Bush didn't really fulfill his
> obligations to the National Guard, and used the Guard to avoid service in
> Vietnam.
>
>   
You're free to be sure of whatever you choose but absent evidence who 
cares? There isn't evidence of any of the charges you bring up and the 
best you can do, being unwilling to let go of the episode, is to 
complain that the absence of evidence that everything was done right is 
proof that something was wrong. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
>> If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
>> a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
>> that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do.
>>     
>  Um, there's more to it than that. Y'know, like I actually pointed out.
>
>   
Nope, there isn't. There's a Wikipedia article of dubious value. That 
becomes clearer when you follow some of the links to something called 
"THE AWOL PROJECT" and get an eye full of what The AWOL Project 
considers evidence. Not unlike you definition actually in that a failure 
to provide sufficient evidence of innocence is considered evidence of guilt.
>> That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
>> organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
>> important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
>> innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
>> enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
>> evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
>> absence of evidence of bias.
>>     
>
>  And yet, I haven't seen anything produced that contradicts the overall
> accuracy of, say, the situation in Iraq. So far, the 'poster boy' story
> of bias (the "Jamil Hussein" affair) has been shown to be credible in
> essentially all confirmable. What else ya got?
>
>   
Well, there's the "Jamil Hussein" affair as evidence of bias. 
Single-sourcing controversial stories with no follow up and no attempt 
to vet the single source. Hardly the handiwork of an organization 
anxious to maintain a reputation for evenhandedness.
>> Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
>> profession. That he does is a mark against the profession
>>     
>
>  And I *agree* with you. But, as I've said and you've apparently not
> read, over and over again, I *don't* think that the media is unbiased.
> I think it's biased towards 'whatever makes money', and further distorted
> by deliberate attemtps to shape and spin coverage by all comers.
>   
That's hardly a bias worthy of consideration. Might as well charge the 
reporters with being biased towards breathing.

Of course the organizations are biased towards financial survival but 
knowing that doesn't prove bias in any other direction. Separate issue 
and an issue which quite clearly transcends considerations of wicked 
profits since governmental news agencies don't even attempt to hide bias.

If anything, the pursuit of profit is more likely to cause a news 
organization to avoid overt evidence of bias although obviously, it's no 
guarantee.
>  What you apparently seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
> "they're all liberals" or something. Which manifestly isn't true.
>
>   
You're wrong. It's just that the presumptions of the left hold a 
particular attraction for the news media an attraction that's not a 
recent phenomenon either.
>> No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
>> the news and outright lie...
>>     
>
>  Yes, they (in the person of their corporate parent) very definitely did.
> They very *specifically* advanced that argument in court.
>
>   
No, the link you provided was long on innuendo and implication and short 
of specifics. The site you pointed to has no more credibility then "The 
AWOL Project" and their artful interpretation of the court decisions 
does nothing to improve their credibility.
>> ... so you're still in need of some case of similarly egregious behavior.
>>     
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
>
>  I fail to see why the *exact same type of evidence* that you believe
> proves *liberal* bias in other media sources does not apply to Fox News.
>
>   
>> And please, no more sites like the one you linked.
>>     
>
>  Okay, here's the actual court decision:
>
>   http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
>
>  I particularly recommend for your consideration the top of page 4.
>   
And I recommend for *your* consideration the preceding paragraphs 
starting towards the top of page 3. They lost and now they're, or 
they've found interested parties, to spin the story more to their liking.
>   
>> It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
>> for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
>> causation via repetition.
>>     
>
>  Well, it made a lot more sense in the period of the cold war, when it
> got started. But the relationship has continued after that, and it's
> still a convenient ally for military actions in the region. (Which,
> again, wouldn't be necessary if we didn't need the oil.)
>
>   
OK, so you do plan to establish causation via repetition. That doesn't 
change the fact that every military clash between Isreal and it's 
neighbors resulted from either the crossing of Israel's borders by Arab 
military units or the evidence of imminent intention to do so. And none 
of this border crossing it should be noted involved an Arab state with 
enough oil in the ground to lubricate a door hinge.
>> As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
>> community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
>> the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
>> enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
>> those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.
>>     
>
>  Tell ya what. How about we treat them the same way - either Darfour and
> Israel get the same level of help from the U.S., or else they get the help
> from the U.N.
>
>   
Why?
>  My point, if it's not too much trouble to ask you to address it, is: Why
> do we fund Israel at several million dollars per day but not Darfour?
>
>   
And that's one way of avoiding the question of why U.N., that source of 
all that's good internationally, hasn't gotten it's collective thumb out 
of its collective ass and gone to help the folks in Darfour? It's not 
like there's much in the way of Oil-for-Food graft to protect any more 
and it can't be that complex to run a child prostitution service so why 
hasn't the U.N. performed even a lick of peace-keeping in Darfour?

American interest in the Mideast is in maintaining order in a 
strategically important part of the world, of which the trade in 
petroleum is part. If that's insufficiently noble then you'll just have 
to deal with it but it does provide a credible reason for not inserting 
U.S. military into Darfour.
>> You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
>> strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
>> industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
>> reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, 
>> geographic neighborhood of Israel.
>>     
>
>  Name, say, your top three other reasons.
>
>   
It's been a critical trading region since Biblical times. That's changed 
to a degree but it's still important. The Mideast provides land access 
between Asia and Africa which is of both military and economic importance.
>> As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
>> left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
>> citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
>> helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
>> petroleum reserves.
>>     
>
>  Well, if you're right, then they *don't* need us. So why are we supporting
> them again, even at political cost to ourselves?
>
>   
For the same reason we've always supported Israel: in this important 
part of the world there's no other nation with which we have common 
interests.
>> Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder
>> in the Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
>> to regional pressures.
>  A. Why is disorder there a threat to the human race? Be specific.
>   
Is there something about "widespread disorder in the Mideast" that 
requires clarification?
>  B. Is support for Israel a band-aid solution that cannot work indefinitely?
>
>   
If it were a "band-aid solution that cannot possibly work indefinitely" 
what difference would it make? Are the only solutions worthy of pursuit 
permanent and clearly so?
>> You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
>> with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
>> realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
>> balance I don't find all that much to fault.
>>     
>
>  So, we (based on probable disinformation from Britain) overthrow an elected
> government to impose a monarchy in Iran.
Yup.
>  That blows up on us later, so we fund
> and supply a brutal dictator in his war against our former puppet, providing
> him with satellite photos and analysis (which gave him information he could use
> later to try to hide things from us).
Yup.
>  Then he slips form his leash and attacks
> another country and we have to go in and stomp him with a full military
> offensive.
>
>   
Yeah, that about sums it up.

In a different world with different political forces at work or more 
perfect knowledge of the future there might have been other ways to 
protect America's interests but in this world I don't see what could 
have been done much differently.

What would you have preferred? A punctilious regard for the electoral 
outcome of the Iranian election of a communist government? Not providing 
weapons to Saddam Hussein? Not moving to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait?
>  Meanwhile we are funding and supplying radical Islamist insurgents against
> the USSR in another country, helping them learn how to run a guerilla war
> against a superior military force.
>
>   
So we shouldn't have funded and supplied radical Islamist insurgents 
against the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan? It's not like we had a lot 
of choice, it was the radical Islamist insurgents or nothing and 
"nothing" didn't seem like a good idea then and it still doesn't.
>> The U.S. no more overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran
>> then a shout is an avalanche.
>>     
>
>  That's, uh, a rather charitable reading of events.
>
>   
No, the election of Mossadegh was followed by the usual escalation of 
violence and repression against the political enemies of the incipient 
"people's" republic and, having fouled their nest in so doing, undercut 
whatever popular support the regime may have come into office with.
>> Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes
>>     
>
>  The actual allegations of the 'communism' of Mossadeq came from Britain,
> upset about losing control of Iranian oil, and appear to have been largely
> disinformation. It wasn't really the key reason, anyway - they were worried
> about a weak Iran being taken over by the USSR.
>
>  I might diffidently suggest a possible alternative - convince Britan to
> work with Iran on their oil negotiations, maybe even accepting a
> less-than-desirable settlement from the British perspective, but one which
> would cement Iran's relations with the West. (The US could have brokered
> such a deal - we'd already saved Iran from a Soviet incursion once.) Britan
> just wanted the oil, though, and the US wasn't willing to hold to the courage
> of their convictions. And that led to, well...
>   
The "allegations" of communism were certainly not undercut by the 
nationalization of the petroleum industry, collectivization of 
agriculture and repression of political enemies, a series of steps which 
by then could practically be put to music. It's not as if there weren't 
a whole slew of "people's" republics that has sprung into existence 
following exactly the steps that Iran was started on.
>   
>> You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
>> petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
>> good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
>> Israel.
>>     
>
>  *If* we're going to do that, we should get more for our efforts. The
> Saudi regime is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:
>
>   
Nope, that's what we should get for our efforts. Besides, that's what we 
did get for our efforts. Second-guessing may be fun but it's not 
particularly worthwhile.
>  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer
>
>  And the fallout from that will be much worse from our perspective... if
> we're still dependent on their oil.
>
>   
There's nothing special about the House of Saud from the U.S. point of 
view. They're there so we deal with them. Should we pretend they're not?

And, we're not dependent on Saudi oil. It's cheaper then the 
alternatives right now although even that's partly a function of 
technology and partly a function of politics. Given a reasonably period 
of time a sufficiently unreliable source of supply will deal itself out 
of the market by artificially inflating prices and with unpleasant but 
survivable repercussions.
>> Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
>> engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
>> same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
>> values and goals?
>>     
>
>  Oversimplification. We don't have to treat Israel "the same as" the rest
> of the Middle East; what I object to is the *major* amount of *unconditional*
> support we offer without any apparent consideration of the ROI or
> consequences.
>
>   
That's an easy objection to make since it's untrue. The amount of aid is 
a function of the utility of the regime to U.S. interests; none of the 
Arab regimes are worth spit in that regard. Aid is always contingent on 
political value but that's domestic and international political value so 
there's your ROI consideration.
>>>  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
>>> the terrorists those regions spawn.
>>>       
>> Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
>> would you characterize your views?
>>     
Uchh! Enough! I can't spend any more time at this.

Maybe you're quicker on the keyboard but this is just sucking up too 
much of my time.

If you want to continue, you bring the pizza I'll bring the beer. That 
way if we can't come to a meeting of the minds we can settle this like 
men: I've got Pepsi, I've Mentos and I know how to use them.

Allen


From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Tue Jan  9 18:45:37 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:45:37 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Where is the forum at?
Message-ID: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com>

I'm just wondering, what happened to the forum that was at forum.mdlug.org?

BTW - this is Kris Marshall (Karr0t) again. Same person, different 
e-mail. I'm stuck on a Windows box for the time being, but I'll have to 
fix this problem soon because Windows is making me hate computers.

No, seriously.


From driveray at ameritech.net  Tue Jan  9 19:46:47 2007
From: driveray at ameritech.net (Raymond McLaughlin)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:46:47 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Where is the forum at?
In-Reply-To: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com>
References: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <45A43777.6080806@ameritech.net>

Kristoffer Marshall wrote:
> I'm just wondering, what happened to the forum that was at forum.mdlug.org?

An enthusiastic member, Merrick, was maintaining the MDLUG forums on a
separate server, off of his home cable connection. He was doing this on
his own initiative, we just pointed the domain name at his IP.

Last September he notified me that he was shutting it down because it
was making funny noises. He made some mention of making a backup
archive, and I tentatively offered to let him host it on the new web
server. I have heard nothing since then. In December I removed the link
from our front page.

As I recall it was getting very little traffic, about 5 or so posts per
month.


> BTW - this is Kris Marshall (Karr0t) again. Same person, different 
> e-mail. I'm stuck on a Windows box for the time being, but I'll have to 
> fix this problem soon because Windows is making me hate computers.
> 
> No, seriously.

Ouch! I feel your pain! Stop it right now!

Raymond McLaughlin
Server Admin MDLUG


From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 15:04:58 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:04:58 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Where is the forum at?
In-Reply-To: <45A43777.6080806@ameritech.net>
References: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com> <45A43777.6080806@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <45A546EA.2080108@gmail.com>

Raymond McLaughlin wrote:
> Kristoffer Marshall wrote:
>   
>> I'm just wondering, what happened to the forum that was at forum.mdlug.org?
>>     
>
> An enthusiastic member, Merrick, was maintaining the MDLUG forums on a
> separate server, off of his home cable connection. He was doing this on
> his own initiative, we just pointed the domain name at his IP.
>
> Last September he notified me that he was shutting it down because it
> was making funny noises. He made some mention of making a backup
> archive, and I tentatively offered to let him host it on the new web
> server. I have heard nothing since then. In December I removed the link
> from our front page.
>
> As I recall it was getting very little traffic, about 5 or so posts per
> month.
>   
Ah-ha. I see. If I were to host a forum, all I would need to provide is 
a static IP address? I can possibly use my own server I use for my 
"company" if anyone would be interested. phpBB of course, but I don't 
know what version the backend sets up.


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Mon Jan 15 08:23:41 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:23:41 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
Message-ID: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>

http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/

Enjoy,
-- 
Dr. Robert J. Meier


From peter at petertheplumber.net  Mon Jan 15 10:39:08 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:39:08 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
In-Reply-To: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
References: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
Message-ID: <1168875548.8849.17.camel@plumber.site>

On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 08:23 -0500, Robert Meier wrote:
> http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/
> 
> Enjoy,

	Thanks Robert, I needed that!
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From tesral at comcast.net  Mon Jan 15 11:27:27 2007
From: tesral at comcast.net (Garry Stahl)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:27:27 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
In-Reply-To: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
References: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
Message-ID: <45ABAB6F.8050907@comcast.net>

Robert Meier wrote:
> http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/
>
> Enjoy,
>   

Unix underpants, snerk.

-- 
Garry  AKA  --Phoenix--  Rising above the Flames.

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Star Trek mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur
The Olde Phoenix Inn Http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com



From wolfger at gmail.com  Mon Jan 15 11:34:15 2007
From: wolfger at gmail.com (Wolfger)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:34:15 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
In-Reply-To: <45ABAB6F.8050907@comcast.net>
References: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
	<45ABAB6F.8050907@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3b00b3330701150834m39044c84g714c0e25e4b1ce93@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/15/07, Garry Stahl <tesral at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Unix underpants, snerk.

Yeah, really... Everybody knows it should have been "chmod -R 700 /*". *sigh*

-- 
Wolfger
http://randomsynapsefiring.eponym.com/
AOL IM: wolf4coyot
Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer
Skype: wolfger88


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan 16 13:06:50 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:06:50 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
Message-ID: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>

I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.

Allen


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan 16 14:24:52 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:24:52 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>

Never mind. I now know about badblocks.
allen wrote:
> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
>
> Allen
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   



From driveray at ameritech.net  Tue Jan 16 14:58:21 2007
From: driveray at ameritech.net (Raymond McLaughlin)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:58:21 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net> <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>

Don't for get about smartctl

allen wrote:
> Never mind. I now know about badblocks.
> allen wrote:
>> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
>> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
>> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
>>
>> Allen




From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan 16 15:45:35 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:45:35 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net> <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>

Thanks, I found the "smart" suite but I was looking for something that 
was likely already installed. badblocks does just fine.

Now all I have to figure out is if having 822 bad blocks makes me the 
captain of the Titanic or one, lucky son-of-a-gun. Thoughts?

Allen

Raymond McLaughlin wrote:
> Don't for get about smartctl
>
> allen wrote:
>   
>> Never mind. I now know about badblocks.
>> allen wrote:
>>     
>>> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
>>> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
>>> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
>>>
>>> Allen
>>>       
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   



From radkins at impelind.com  Tue Jan 16 15:56:46 2007
From: radkins at impelind.com (Robert Adkins)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:56:46 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>

allen wrote:
> Thanks, I found the "smart" suite but I was looking for something that 
> was likely already installed. badblocks does just fine.
>
> Now all I have to figure out is if having 822 bad blocks makes me the 
> captain of the Titanic or one, lucky son-of-a-gun. Thoughts?
>
> Allen
>
>
>   
    Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.

    Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the 
bad sector disk out to pasture.

    Rob


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jan 17 10:49:18 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:49:18 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
Message-ID: <45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>

Robert Adkins wrote:
>
>     Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.
>
>     Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the 
> bad sector disk out to pasture.
>
>     Rob
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   

Any manufacturers you favor?

The drive that's pooping out is an IBM Deskstar which I understand has 
gotten the nickname "Deathstar".

I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.

Allen


From lists at addictz.org  Wed Jan 17 12:48:20 2007
From: lists at addictz.org (Mike)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:48:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net> <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net> <45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com> <45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>

allen wrote:
> Robert Adkins wrote:
>>
>>     Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.
>>
>>     Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the
>> bad sector disk out to pasture.
>>
>>     Rob

>
> Any manufacturers you favor?
>
> The drive that's pooping out is an IBM Deskstar which I understand has
> gotten the nickname "Deathstar".
>
> I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.
>
> Allen

People are as varied as their preferred HD manufacturer of choice as they
are their linux distro of choice.  People will also quote their given
experiences with HDs failing, and someone else will be around to
completely refute what they say.

That being said, *I* will only buy Hitachi (replaced IBM), Western
Digital, or Seagate (even though I've had past experience with some
troubles working with Seagate support on getting SATA II drives firmware
updated).

The only manufacturer that I completely avoid is Maxtor, and probably for
more of a historical reason, than the current products reliability, back
in the day when I was doing a lot of building, Maxtor's crapped out all
the time on me.

I've had all kinds of HDs fail on me, Maxtor, WD, Seagate, IBM, etc.  And
its pretty random, and I'm sure a lot of other factors come into play like
case ventillation and such.

Just check out the Hot Deals forum at Anandtech and see what HD deals roll
through there, and get a good price.

Mike





From kentech at provide.net  Wed Jan 17 13:12:18 2007
From: kentech at provide.net (Kenneth C Coe Jr)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:12:18 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
	<45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
	<11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
Message-ID: <45AE6702.2090706@provide.net>

Mike wrote:
> allen wrote:
>   
>> Robert Adkins wrote:
>>     
>>>     Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.
>>>
>>>     Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the
>>> bad sector disk out to pasture.
>>>
>>>     Rob
>>>       
>
>   
>> Any manufacturers you favor?
>>
>> The drive that's pooping out is an IBM Deskstar which I understand has
>> gotten the nickname "Deathstar".
>>
>> I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.
>>
>> Allen
>>     
>
> People are as varied as their preferred HD manufacturer of choice as they
> are their linux distro of choice.  People will also quote their given
> experiences with HDs failing, and someone else will be around to
> completely refute what they say.
>
> That being said, *I* will only buy Hitachi (replaced IBM), Western
> Digital, or Seagate (even though I've had past experience with some
> troubles working with Seagate support on getting SATA II drives firmware
> updated).
>
> The only manufacturer that I completely avoid is Maxtor, and probably for
> more of a historical reason, than the current products reliability, back
> in the day when I was doing a lot of building, Maxtor's crapped out all
> the time on me.
>
> I've had all kinds of HDs fail on me, Maxtor, WD, Seagate, IBM, etc.  And
> its pretty random, and I'm sure a lot of other factors come into play like
> case ventillation and such.
>
> Just check out the Hot Deals forum at Anandtech and see what HD deals roll
> through there, and get a good price.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   

well, said...

For my two cents, I will only buy WD and Seagate. I prefer WD, but 
seagate does offer the only five year warranty.


From MPR_Linux at Ameritech.net  Wed Jan 17 13:54:41 2007
From: MPR_Linux at Ameritech.net (Michael Rudas (computer))
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:54:41 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
	<45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
	<11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
Message-ID: <45AE70F1.3040604@Ameritech.net>

Mike wrote:

> The only manufacturer that I completely avoid is Maxtor, and probably for
> more of a historical reason...

Maxtor IS history.  It was purchased by Seagate about a year ago.  There 
are still Maxtor-branded drives sold, but how many actually come off the 
old Max lines?  I don't know...

Iv'e had pretty good luck with the current-generation Samsung drives, as 
well.

-- Mikey




From radkins at impelind.com  Wed Jan 17 15:23:33 2007
From: radkins at impelind.com (Robert Adkins)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:23:33 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
	<45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
	<11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
Message-ID: <45AE85C5.1040302@impelind.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mdlug.org/pipermail/mdlug-discuss/attachments/20070117/d2befabb/attachment.html>

From peter at petertheplumber.net  Sun Jan 21 19:59:33 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:59:33 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10 Easy Upgrade
Message-ID: <1169427573.4221.46.camel@plumber.site>

Hello Everyone,
	This past weekend I upgraded an IBM T30 Thinkpad from Ubuntu 6.06 to
6.10. I've been having problems with the machine freezing, seemingly at
random, network manager not automatically connecting, hyperlinks not
opening the appropriate program, etc despite my best attempts to set it
up properly. So I was trying to solve a lot of problems based in part on
my experiences loading 6.10 on my son's T22 Thinkpad. You might get the
idea I'm partial to Thinkpads???? ;-)
	At any rate I decided to upgrade using the suggested method, Update
Manager <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EdgyUpgrades>. I did back
things up as suggested and made notes as well. The update itself was
remarkable in it's lack of trouble. I elected to replace all the files
when asked if I wanted to. This part took several hours to complete. The
next morning I went back in and following the directions here
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Device/IntersilPrism25Wavelan?highlight=%28WifiDocs%2FDevice%29>
 and here <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/ThinkpadT30> 
adjusted the settings for my Intersil Corporation Prism 2.5 Wavelan minipci 
wireless adapter and suspend options in the files specified. I also disabled 
hibernate, this seemed to help? Of course I had to go through and  check all
 the personal settings in the various logins as well. 
	All seems to be well. All the issues I was looking to solve were solved
and I appear to have a much better machine for it! WooHoo!

Regards,
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From peter at petertheplumber.net  Sun Jan 21 20:21:17 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:21:17 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Netgear Wireless Access Point
Message-ID: <1169428877.4221.62.camel@plumber.site>

Hello Everyone,
	I've been having trouble with Netgear wireless routers and several
versions of Linux. I have trouble connecting to and actually going
somewhere once connected. Using Windows I do not remember having any
trouble but I've had trouble with two versions of SUSE and two versions
of Ubuntu. I have no such troubles with all three machines at any number
of public and private AP's. Once such AP is at a home and one is at a
local Big Boy. It appears to be random at this point and I'm thinking of
simply replacing the offending AP rather than spend a lot of time
troubleshooting. Any last thoughts?

Regards,
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From peter at petertheplumber.net  Mon Jan 22 00:47:03 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:47:03 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] SUSE 10.2 Success on an Thinkpad T30
Message-ID: <1169444823.4294.33.camel@plumber.site>

Hello Everyone,
	I think I'm now done with installing and configuring SUSE 10.2 on my
T30 Thinkpad. P4-M 2.0GHz, 1 gig RAM, 40.0GB HDD, 14.1 XGA(1024x768) TFT
LCD, cd/dvd combo rw, Modem(CDC), Ethernet(LOM), 802.11 minipci wireless
card. I would have to say it's been a complete success! The install and
initial configuration were very easy. I opted to go with Gnome for a
manager. Most everything just worked! Installing the printer/scanner was
a matter of a few mouse clicks, amazing! The only issues I had was an
annoying display flashing problem; that went away on it's own; and high
power consumption during suspend. Suspend/resume, ethernet, wireless,
printer, scanner, video, etc just worked! WooHoo! 
	To solve the suspend power consumption I went to
<http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ThinkWiki> to read up. I then used the
distro specific instructions at
<http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:ThinkPadPowerDrain> and the instructions at
<http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ACPI_sleep_power_drain_test_script> to
fix this problem. I won't know for several days whether things actually
worked, but indications are very good. According to the script, before
correcting things I was using over 8000mw for 1000sec. After I am using
less than 500mw for 1400 sec.
	So I have to say I prefer SUSE 10.2 over Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10. Mostly
because getting a scanner to run on Ubuntu is as big as a pain as it was
under SUSE 10.0. That being said I have no plans to replace Ubuntu 6.10
on the two Thinkpads that are running it.

Regards,
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From gib at juno.com  Mon Jan 22 18:46:10 2007
From: gib at juno.com (gib at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:46:10 GMT
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Netgear Wireless Access Point
Message-ID: <20070122.154653.701.243461@webmail15.lax.untd.com>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://mdlug.org/pipermail/mdlug-discuss/attachments/20070122/73d7d917/attachment.ksh>

From lnovak1 at ford.com  Tue Jan 23 09:32:10 2007
From: lnovak1 at ford.com (Novak, Louis (L.M.))
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:32:10 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10 Easy Upgrade
Message-ID: <E037466F30DD454FA3F82C941DFF92E1044485C5@na1fcm10.dearborn.ford.com>


Quelle coincidence.

I did the same for my HP laptop. Worked like a charm.

I didn't even bother to back up my files beforehand.

Confidence or foolishness, you decide. ;-)

-- 
Louis Novak  lnovak1 at ford.com   (313)248-6788 
Ford Motor Co., IT Competency Center
Ask me about my Mercury Mariner Hybrid  



-----Original Message-----
From: mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org
[mailto:mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bart
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:00 PM
To: mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10 Easy Upgrade

Hello Everyone,
	This past weekend I upgraded an IBM T30 Thinkpad from Ubuntu
6.06 to 6.10. I've been having problems with the machine freezing,
seemingly at random, network manager not automatically connecting,
hyperlinks not opening the appropriate program, etc despite my best
attempts to set it up properly. So I was trying to solve a lot of
problems based in part on my experiences loading 6.10 on my son's T22
Thinkpad. You might get the idea I'm partial to Thinkpads???? ;-)
	At any rate I decided to upgrade using the suggested method,
Update Manager <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EdgyUpgrades>. I did
back things up as suggested and made notes as well. The update itself
was remarkable in it's lack of trouble. I elected to replace all the
files when asked if I wanted to. This part took several hours to
complete. The next morning I went back in and following the directions
here
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Device/IntersilPrism25Wavela
n?highlight=%28WifiDocs%2FDevice%29>
 and here <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/ThinkpadT30>
adjusted the settings for my Intersil Corporation Prism 2.5 Wavelan
minipci wireless adapter and suspend options in the files specified. I
also disabled hibernate, this seemed to help? Of course I had to go
through and  check all  the personal settings in the various logins as
well. 
	All seems to be well. All the issues I was looking to solve were
solved and I appear to have a much better machine for it! WooHoo!

Regards,
--
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net

_______________________________________________
mdlug-discuss mailing list
mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss


From peter at petertheplumber.net  Wed Jan 24 14:27:22 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:27:22 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Open Jobs in Ann Arbor
Message-ID: <1169666843.4733.76.camel@plumber.site>

Hi Everyone,
	I came across this <http://nsf.hodesiq.com/job_start.asp?user_id=>
while researching some water filters for a job. If you go to work there
I expect kickbacks ;-)

-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Thu Jan 25 18:44:13 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:44:13 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
Message-ID: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>

I'm wondering if anyone here has used MATLAB before. I have to use it 
for a multimedia class at OU. Don't ask me why, because programming 
wasn't a prerequisite for the class, and our teacher didn't even teach 
us how to use MATLAB. If you've never heard of it, it's a programming 
language used primarily in academia and science. If you've programmed 
before, you basically have to forget everything you've learned or else 
the language doesn't make any sense (at least if you know C/C++, VB, or 
PHP). Apparently it resembles Fortran the most, so you can imagine how 
freakin fun it is to use.

Anyway, this is the problem I'm working on:

===================
1.(3pts) When you use the function of imwrite( ) to save an image file 
in JPEG format in MATLAB, you can choose different qualities. For 
example, let I be your image array, you can use
 >> imwrite(I, ?highQ.jpg?, ?jpg?, ?Quality?, 100);
to save I in high quality (par = 100) JPEG image.

Change the value of 100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1, to save the same image 
in different qualities.
Find the size of the resulted images.
Use your finding to plot a curve showing the file size as a function of 
image quality.
===================



And this is what I have so far:

===================
I = imread('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\castle.jpg')
%100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output100.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 100);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output80.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 80);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output60.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 60);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output40.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 40);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output20.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 20);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output1.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 1);

imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output100.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output80.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output60.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output40.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output20.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output1.jpg')
===================

Apparently I can do:

imageinfo100 = imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output100.jpg')

and it will create a matrix (yes, it's called a matrix instead of an 
array just to piss you off) with file dimensions, size, depth, etc. The 
third value of the matrix is the FileSize. I don't know how to access 
this, nor do I know how to print a variable to the output. Once I can 
get the raw value of how big the file is, I can then plot it to a curve, 
which should be easy (I hope).

If you're reading this and you actually 'do' like MATLAB, more power to 
ya. It can do a lot of stuff, but it's expensive, and I can't find very 
much info on the web about how to use the darn thing, so I'm frustrated 
with it currently. We had to downsample an image and quantize it back to 
full resolution last week, and I still don't even know how to print 
"Hello World"!


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Fri Jan 26 20:03:20 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:03:20 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
In-Reply-To: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com> (message from Kristoffer Marshall on
	Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:44:13 -0500)
References: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>

Kristoffer,

> I'm wondering if anyone here has used MATLAB before. [...]

Yes.  MATLAB is an excellent tool.  I've used it as a "programmable
calculator" for matrix arithmetic, complete with built-in
i/o for most numerical industrial equipment.

If you plan to do any development for automatic multimedia 
generation, simulation, numerical control, ..., you'll encounter
much matrix arithmetic.

As the de facto tool in the industry, you will find MATLAB
syntax (or reasonable facsimile thereto) often used as the
common language to express that matrix arithmetic.

At home, (where I don't have much numerical industrial equipment)
I use octave as my "programmable calculator" for matrix arithmetic.
I use ImageMagick, and sox for much of my multimedia manipulation.
All three are available with SuSE and other fine distros for prototyping
image and sound generation/processing algorithms.


> ===================
> 1.(3pts) When you use the function of imwrite( ) to save an image file 
> in JPEG format in MATLAB, you can choose different qualities. For 
> example, let I be your image array, you can use
>  >> imwrite(I, 'highQ.jpg?, 'jpg?, 'Quality?, 100);
> to save I in high quality (par = 100) JPEG image.

> Change the value of 100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1, to save the same image 
> in different qualities.
> Find the size of the resulted images.
> Use your finding to plot a curve showing the file size as a function of 
> image quality.
> ===================

I suspect your teacher is trying to introduce you to the language of
multimedia software development, along with demonstrating the concepts
of resolution, and quantization error.


If you don't have MATLAB available to convert your jpeg images,
consider using convert(1) from Kodak's ImageMagick package.
See -quality in the convert(1) man page.  You'll have to type in,
or *horror of horrors* write a perl/sh/... script :)  to capture
the sizes and plot them.  The integration and scripting of
matrix reading, calculation, and presentation is what many MATLAB
users find worth pay for.

You should find that the image size usually drops rapidly at first
and then slowly, but the perceived "distortion" drops slowly at first
and then fast.  Try several types of images (e.g. landscape photo,
cartoon sketch, wireframe diagram, cloudscape, ...) to get a
feel for the tradeoff.


> ... I still don't even know how to print "Hello World"!

  MATLAB: 1> 'Hello World'

Typing 07734 into upside down calculator,
-- 
Dr. Robert J. Meier


From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Sat Jan 27 01:36:16 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:36:16 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
In-Reply-To: <200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>
References: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>
	<200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>
Message-ID: <45BAF2E0.8010707@gmail.com>

Robert Meier wrote:
> Kristoffer,
>
>   
>> I'm wondering if anyone here has used MATLAB before. [...]
>>     
>
> Yes.  MATLAB is an excellent tool.  I've used it as a "programmable
> calculator" for matrix arithmetic, complete with built-in
> i/o for most numerical industrial equipment.
>
> If you plan to do any development for automatic multimedia 
> generation, simulation, numerical control, ..., you'll encounter
> much matrix arithmetic.
>
> As the de facto tool in the industry, you will find MATLAB
> syntax (or reasonable facsimile thereto) often used as the
> common language to express that matrix arithmetic.
>
> At home, (where I don't have much numerical industrial equipment)
> I use octave as my "programmable calculator" for matrix arithmetic.
> I use ImageMagick, and sox for much of my multimedia manipulation.
> All three are available with SuSE and other fine distros for prototyping
> image and sound generation/processing algorithms.
>
>
>   
>> ===================
>> 1.(3pts) When you use the function of imwrite( ) to save an image file 
>> in JPEG format in MATLAB, you can choose different qualities. For 
>> example, let I be your image array, you can use
>>  >> imwrite(I, 'highQ.jpg?, 'jpg?, 'Quality?, 100);
>> to save I in high quality (par = 100) JPEG image.
>>     
>
>   
>> Change the value of 100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1, to save the same image 
>> in different qualities.
>> Find the size of the resulted images.
>> Use your finding to plot a curve showing the file size as a function of 
>> image quality.
>> ===================
>>     
>
> I suspect your teacher is trying to introduce you to the language of
> multimedia software development, along with demonstrating the concepts
> of resolution, and quantization error.
>
>
> If you don't have MATLAB available to convert your jpeg images,
> consider using convert(1) from Kodak's ImageMagick package.
> See -quality in the convert(1) man page.  You'll have to type in,
> or *horror of horrors* write a perl/sh/... script :)  to capture
> the sizes and plot them.  The integration and scripting of
> matrix reading, calculation, and presentation is what many MATLAB
> users find worth pay for.
>
> You should find that the image size usually drops rapidly at first
> and then slowly, but the perceived "distortion" drops slowly at first
> and then fast.  Try several types of images (e.g. landscape photo,
> cartoon sketch, wireframe diagram, cloudscape, ...) to get a
> feel for the tradeoff.
>
>
>   
>> ... I still don't even know how to print "Hello World"!
>>     
>
>   MATLAB: 1> 'Hello World'
>
> Typing 07734 into upside down calculator,
>   
:-p Thanks. I'm actually pretty familiar with ImageMagick, and I'd 
rather use it than MATLAB because it looks like the class is going to be 
web-oriented anyway (we're doing Flash too). MATLAB can do some pretty 
cool stuff, but the things our teacher is making us do are things that 
most people aren't using MATLAB for, so it's really really hard to find 
examples on the web about this stuff.

So, I know how to do Hello World. Now, how do I print a variable? Yet 
another thing my teacher failed to point out. :-)


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Sat Jan 27 09:19:00 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:19:00 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MDLUG usage reminder
Message-ID: <45BB5F54.mailHC21KZ9C4@freehold.wwnet.com>

This is the monthly reminder of
     mdlug List Guidelines.
Please send comments to eaglecoach at wwnet.com
Meetings are monthly (http://www.mdlug.org/meetings/meetings.html).

*Courtesy:*
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you in their place.

See /Emily Postnews/ (http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html) and
  /Netiquette Guidelines/ (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html) for details.

If you find something objectionable or off-topic, please send a courteous
  note offlist to the author (and/or postmaster at mdlug.org) rather than list.
  (The rule is simple, do not be easily annoyed or annoying.)

Please post messages in plain text (rather than html or rich text).
  See http://expita.com/nomime.html for instructions for your browser.

Please remove References: field when starting a new subject.

Please trim your replies so that you only quote the parts you are are
  replying to, rather than the entire original message , and
  prefix with '>'. (Most mail clients do this part automatically.)

Please do not cross-post, and if you feel you must, please direct
  discussion to one list with a reply-to; field

*Lists:*
 mdlug-admin    mdlug administration

 mdlug-newbie   questions/answers with explanation of concepts
                assume the questioner was unaware of the
                man/info/... pages
                initial configuration of ???

 mdlug          ANNOUNCE: announcements only, no discussion

 mdlug          questions/answers using jargon
                assume the questioner has read the man/info/... pages
                technical (e.g. howto, perl scripts)

 mdlug-discuss  politics
                Microsoft-bashing
                my disto can beat up your distro, and other flames
                anything else

*Filtering and Security*
If you lack time or interest to follow some of the topics, ask
 mdlug-newbie for suggestions on filtering mail automatically.

We welcome the many who listen silently, and invite them to post when
 they wish to contribute either questions or answers.

We strip the reply to addresses from the headers of messages before putting
 them in the archives.

Likewise, our archiving software quashes email addresses in the body of
 messages, to make them difficult for spammers to harvest. However they
 will still be human readable so you might want to consider this before
 posting personal email addresses.

Have fun!


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Sat Jan 27 20:47:34 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:47:34 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
In-Reply-To: <45BAF2E0.8010707@gmail.com> (message from Kristoffer Marshall on
	Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:36:16 -0500)
References: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>
	<200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>
	<45BAF2E0.8010707@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200701280147.l0S1lY5L024120@freehold.wwnet.com>

Kristoffer,

> ... Thanks.

You're welcome.



> ... it's really really hard to find examples on the web about [MATLAB] ...

These days, I'm using C++, perl, and java more frequently than matlab.

The following may prove more helpful than I.
(I did not test whether or not all the following are currently active.)

matrix mathematics
	Matrix mathematics is a crucial underpinning of simulation,
	automatic multimedia processing/generation.
	A good engineering textbook on linear systems will include a
	section that can get you successfully started on matrix mathematics.
	http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Systems-Panos-J-Antsaklis/dp/0817644342/ref=pd_sim_b_2/002-4904752-5748867

Newsgroup
	news:comp.soft-sys.matlab

Newsgroup-mail gateway
	http://newsreader.mathworks.com/WebX?14@@/comp.soft-sys.matlab

Mailing list
	https://mailman.cs.bham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/matlab-users 
	http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/archive.html
		(matlab and octave users overlap)

Matlab 5 Handbook
	http://www.amazon.com/MATLAB-5-Handbook-Darren-Redfern/dp/0387942009
		(I have found its predecessor useful.)

octave
	Look for octave examples.  Though not an integrated environment
	like MATLAB, octave often requires only a thin glue layer to
	integrate with other unix packages (e.g. ImageMagick).



> ... Now, how do I print a variable?  [blamestorming deleted]

  MATLAB: 1> variable=3;
  MATLAB: 2> variable
  ans=3

-- 
Dr. Robert J. Meier


From akulkis3 at hotpop.com  Tue Jan 16 13:55:13 2007
From: akulkis3 at hotpop.com (Aaron Kulkis)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:55:13 +0300
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD1F91.4040609@hotpop.com>

allen wrote:
> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
> 

Do you have the S.M.A.R.T. package installed?

If not, why not?




From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Wed Jan  3 12:53:34 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:53:34 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] OT: Retro Computing
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B54@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: Aaron Kulkis

> Michael Corral wrote:

>> Well, that's the sort of thing that happens when you invade someone
>> else's country. :\ An invasion based on lies, no less. You're no hero.

>> Just curious, Aaron, but have you killed any Iraqi women and children?

 Michael, I agree with the others that this was uncalled-for and rude.

 Moreover, I disagree with the substance of your statement. I agree that
invading Iraq was a *really* stupid idea with no good justification and a
lot of arguments against it, and moreover everything since the invasion
has borne that out.

 But the people who joined the military to serve and protect the country
don't get to choose what conflicts they join. (They have the right,
indeed the *duty*, to disobey illegal orders, of course. Being ordered
to deploy into Iraq is not such an order.) They explicitly agreed to
follow (legitimate) orders regardless of their personal opinions because
that's how a military *must* be run.

 And we need a military. I don't imagine that our rights and liberties
would survive even a month without our soldiers. I have a profound
respect for our military in general. (Note that I *do* demand the same
respect in return - the military needs civilians just as much as vice
versa. A body composed entirely of immune cells won't survive long.)

 They are (for the most part) doing the best they can in a thoroughly
untenable situation. There are exceptions - gross exceptions, like
Haditha - but those are not the norm. In general, I don't believe even
the officers who acted to cover up the massacre there are the norm.
(God, I hope not.)

 And I haven't seen any evidence that Aaron has participated in any such
crimes. I'm not too fond of Aaron's manner, debating tactics, or political
positions in general, but I sure as hell don't think he's a war
criminal.

 Note that some of the crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan *are*
systemic and the result of both deliberate malfeasance and gross
incompetance all the way up to the commander-in-chief, e.g. Abu Ghraib
and the related prison scandals.

> The American public is so thoroughly propagandized by the
> so-called "journalists" who, have admitted recently that
> they don't even care WHAT the truth is, as long as the story
> "fits the 'larger picture'"....

 I'm not even sure what quote you're referring to (cite, please?) but
let's just say I strongly doubt it comes from "journalists" in general.

> What's going on here is a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran,
> with moderate assistance to them from Syria.

 And, as I've stated before, we'd be waging approximately the same
war in Afghanistan now if we'd stuck around there and not given it up
for this little adventure in Iraq. The terrain (as you've pointed out)
is not as favorable but Afghanistan had several other practical
advantages that outweighed this:

 1. A local population that already wasn't terribly impressed with
    fundamentalist Islamic rule and was willing to try something else.

 2. Said local population had recent memories of the U.S. helping them
    against the Soviet incursion. We weren't exactly doing it out of the
    sheer goodness of our hearts, but we *were* on their side.

 3. We had direct, well-supported and internationally recognized moral
    authority to invade Afghanistan, given 9/11. We'd have had far more
    support in troops and materiel from our allies if we'd stayed in that
    country.

 4. The country's infrastructure was already in a shambles. This doesn't
    sound like an advantage until you realize that *any* improvements we
    could make would be positively regarded. Compare this with Iraq now,
    where the general standard of infrastructure is *well* below the state
    before we invaded.

 5. As a corollary to 4, the government organization was very limited,
    basically consisting of local warlords. Unlike insurgents, they tend
    to have a limited range of operations, and are more vulnerable to
    traditional military tactics. Plus, they can be bought or otherwise
    led into joining the new government.

 6. Hey, we might actually have captured Bin Laden! You know, the guy who
    actually *did* have something to do with 9/11?

> The quickest way to end the problems here in Baghdad and the
> rest of the ocuntry would be to put the Iranian government
> to work digging out of several hundred square miles of
> a capital turned to rubble.

 Then it wouldn't be just Iran supporting terrorism in Iraq. It'd be
*every single country in the region*, at *increased levels*. A smashing
idea! (Literally...)

> But virtually ALL of the remaining problems in the mideast trace
> back to Tehran...because that's where the money flows from.

 And how does the money collect in Tehran in the first place? Oh, yeah,
that's right: we consume well over 100 billion gallons of gasoline per
year...

 Read to the end of this for a more practical (and historically
successful) strategy:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                            (313) 227-2317

 "Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
  would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
      - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Wed Jan  3 15:24:23 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:24:23 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: Aaron Kulkis

> How many stories have they been caught fabricating recently,
> and we're talking NATIONAL news organizations, just because
> the story "fit the larger picture" that they are trying to
> indoctrinate the public with.

 You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
I can see. Hint hint.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317

           My other computer is your Windows machine.
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jan  3 17:42:01 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:42:01 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <459C3139.2080207@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>  You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
> I can see. Hint hint.
>
>  Sincerely,
>
>  Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317
>   
Well, there's Rathergate.

More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant that AP has 
grown fond of.

Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
Iraqi Ministry of Information. I believe the New York Times has gotten 
in a couple of licks on what's left of the concept of journalistic 
ethics as well although I'm not sure whether neo-anti-Semitism or the 
denial of global warming denial merits the bigger pie in the face.

Allen


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Thu Jan  4 08:12:29 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:12:29 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B5C@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: allen
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
> >  You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
> > I can see. Hint hint.

> Well, there's Rathergate.

 Yeah, that was stupid. It was also quickly exposed as such. And it served as a
handy distraction from the fact that no one's been able to substantiate Bush's
Guard service to any significant degree.

> More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant 
> that AP has grown fond of.

 You didn't read up on the followup there, did you?

 http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/12/michelle_malkin.html

> Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
> Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
> Iraqi Ministry of Information.

 I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.

> I believe the New York Times has gotten in a couple of licks on what's left
> of the concept of journalistic ethics as well although I'm not sure whether
> neo-anti-Semitism or the denial of global warming denial merits the bigger
> pie in the face.

 Um, again, actual examples would be helpful here. Links to stories, for
example?

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                 (313) 227-2317

 "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
                              Adlai Stevenson
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jan  4 17:32:32 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:32:32 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B5C@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B5C@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <459D8080.7020608@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>  Yeah, that was stupid. It was also quickly exposed as such. And it served as a
> handy distraction from the fact that no one's been able to substantiate Bush's
> Guard service to any significant degree.
>
>   
Ah, a point of agreement. More then that though, it was phenomenally 
arrogant.

It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience. Everyone 
involved had *way* too much time on the job for either to be a 
reasonable explanation. The temptation to serve political ends overcame 
Sagan's dictum and arrogance precluded consideration of professional 
repercussions.

Also, the episode wasn't *just* exposed, it was exposed by amateurs with 
no experience or resources, not competing professionals with plenty of 
both. Given the importance of the story that bespeaks a remarkably 
uninterested profession. For either ethical or professional reasons 
other members of the journalistic profession should have been on the 
story like flies on a turd. But they weren't. If it wasn't for "just 
folks" Dan Rather might have skated away from the punishment for his 
unprofessional conduct in the same way Walter Cronkite managed to a 
couple of decades earlier.

Also, why is distraction from nothing, handy? Remember, no evidence just 
rumors, clumsy forgery and ethically challenged news people.

The delightful irony is that even the rumors are now emasculated 
courtesy of an over-zealous Democratic activist and over-eager media 
professionals. Who says there's no justice?

>> More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant 
>> that AP has grown fond of.
>>     
>
>  You didn't read up on the followup there, did you?
>
>  http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/12/michelle_malkin.html
>
>   
( Majikthise? She's a fetching blossom but claiming some part of her 
anatomy to be endowed with magical powers? I suppose I'll have to take 
that on faith.)

Which is both long on triumph, short on Iraqi police lieutenants and 
completely ignores AP's single-sourcing a controversial story with 
nothing in the way of justification for extending this source a lick of 
credence.
>> Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
>> Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
>> Iraqi Ministry of Information.
>>     
>
>  I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.
>
>   
I'll see your majicthise, so to speak, and raise you a SusanShelley:

http://www.extremeink.com/susan/cnn.htm

That ought to be enough detail to refresh your memory and also to put 
you on the trail of more substantive commentary if you choose to pursue it.

>> I believe the New York Times has gotten in a couple of licks on what's left
>> of the concept of journalistic ethics as well although I'm not sure whether
>> neo-anti-Semitism or the denial of global warming denial merits the bigger
>> pie in the face.
>>     
>
>  Um, again, actual examples would be helpful here. Links to stories, for
> example?
>
>   
Sorry, the volume of crimes reduces individual transgressions to 
indistinguishableness. I will do my best to bring new outrages to your 
attention in the future however.

>  Sincerely,
>
>  Ray Ingles                                                 (313) 227-2317
>
>  "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
>                               Adlai Stevenson
>   
An unexpectedly revelatory sig.


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Fri Jan  5 14:44:58 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:44:58 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B66@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: allen

> It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience.

 As I said, it was stupid.

> Given the importance of the story that bespeaks a remarkably 
> uninterested profession. For either ethical or professional reasons 
> other members of the journalistic profession should have been on the 
> story like flies on a turd.

 Um, that's a rather slanted presentation of the actual timeline. The
blogs move a lot faster than the journalists, because of their very
natures. Doesn't mean that the so-called 'MSM' didn't investigate, and
*report*, too.

> Also, why is distraction from nothing, handy? Remember, no evidence just 
> rumors, clumsy forgery and ethically challenged news people.

 No, I was pointing to the utter lack of positive evidence for Bush
actually completing his National Guard service, the kind of evidence that
other people can produce.

 Positive evidence would make for a better case, and the desire for that
corrupted Rather's judgement. But the *lack* of evidence is also highly
suggestive.

> Which is both long on triumph, short on Iraqi police lieutenants and 
> completely ignores AP's single-sourcing a controversial story with 
> nothing in the way of justification for extending this source a lick of 
> credence.

 Whereas single-sourced stories that you *approve* of...

 Consider the single source of the U. S. Military on Haditha:

 "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a
roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen
attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and marines
returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

 You might want to check on recent developments in the "Jamil Hussein"
front.

>  I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.
>   
> I'll see your majicthise, so to speak, and raise you a SusanShelley:

> http://www.extremeink.com/susan/cnn.htm

> That ought to be enough detail to refresh your memory and also to put 
> you on the trail of more substantive commentary if you choose to pursue it.

 Indeed. Commentary like this, perhaps?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/jordan_4-17.pdf

 "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
conservative."

 I think you misunderstand me. I'm not a fan of the media in general. I just
don't think it's as simple as having a "liberal" or "conservative" bias.
(Well, except Fox, or Mother Jones, or what have you. They really do have an
explicit bias.) What the general media is biased towards is making money. That
results in more complicated distortions than just 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

> Sorry, the volume of crimes reduces individual transgressions to 
> indistinguishableness. I will do my best to bring new outrages to your 
> attention in the future however.

 Particularly the "neo-anti-Semitism" charge. For example, I don't think
our (the United States') long-term interests are served by our staunch
support of Israel. I'd be quite happy to reduce our dependence on oil and
leave them to fend for themselves. (If the environment there is too inimical,
maybe they could move to South America, a proposal that was floated back in
the 1940's when Israel was being created.)

 Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?

> >  "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
> >                               Adlai Stevenson
> An unexpectedly revelatory sig.

 "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 - Inigo Montoya.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                  (313) 227-2317

 "The [Bush] administration has already established that it has engaged in
 things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people
   after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war
  crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the
  very thing that we once prosecuted people for." - Jonathan Turley, George
             Washington University Constitutional Law Professor
                   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jan  5 21:37:12 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:37:12 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B66@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B66@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <459F0B58.4020006@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>
>> It's unreasonable to blame simple incompetence or inexperience.
>>     
>
>  As I said, it was stupid.
>
>   
Nope. Dan Rather, whatever his shortcomings, isn't stupid. He's 
arrogant, unprofessional and petty but he's not stupid. Minimizing the 
transgression by ascribing it to stupidity doesn't properly encompass 
the scope and seriousness of that transgression.

He sought to use the access to the public his job granted as a means of 
pursuing his own political preferences, showing no regard for the tenets 
of his profession, the democratic process and a disregard for the truth 
that no one should have to bear. Consider, the most favorable 
explanation for Rather's behavior is that he was incompetent to do his job.
>> Given the importance of the story that bespeaks a remarkably 
>> uninterested profession. For either ethical or professional reasons 
>> other members of the journalistic profession should have been on the 
>> story like flies on a turd.
>>     
>
>  Um, that's a rather slanted presentation of the actual timeline. The
> blogs move a lot faster than the journalists, because of their very
> natures. Doesn't mean that the so-called 'MSM' didn't investigate, and
> *report*, too.
>
>   
As I recall, the story was replayed with nothing in the way of 
contradiction and no evidence of competitive investigation until the guy 
with Microsoft Word on his computer put up the infamous jpg making it 
all but impossible to ignore questions of the credibility of the story.
>> Also, why is distraction from nothing, handy? Remember, no evidence just 
>> rumors, clumsy forgery and ethically challenged news people.
>>     
>
>  No, I was pointing to the utter lack of positive evidence for Bush
> actually completing his National Guard service, the kind of evidence that
> other people can produce.
>
>  Positive evidence would make for a better case, and the desire for that
> corrupted Rather's judgement. But the *lack* of evidence is also highly
> suggestive.
>
>   
"Positive evidence"? Would that be the sort of evidence that would prove 
innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Objection, your honor!
>> Which is both long on triumph, short on Iraqi police lieutenants and 
>> completely ignores AP's single-sourcing a controversial story with 
>> nothing in the way of justification for extending this source a lick of 
>> credence.
>>     
>
>  Whereas single-sourced stories that you *approve* of...
>
>  Consider the single source of the U. S. Military on Haditha:
>
>  "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a
> roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen
> attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and marines
> returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."
>
>  You might want to check on recent developments in the "Jamil Hussein"
> front.
>
>   
You're kind of missing the point. AP would like to present themselves as 
credible, even-handed, thorough. But that goal's hardly achieved if 
they're no better as a source of information then the U.S. military 
which is not a news agency.

AP has to do a better job of gathering/supporting their reportage if 
they're to be seen as a better source of information then an agency of 
government they propose to investigate. They have to present, on a 
continuing basis, proof that they're deserving of the trust of people 
who depend on them for impartial, professional journalism. If they're no 
better then the U.S. military in this regard then there's essentially no 
purpose for their continued existence.

And I have been following recent developments about Jamil Hussein. AP's 
odor isn't improving. It's still looking very much like the best case 
scenario for AP is that AP is run by inept amateurs. From there things 
go downhill rapidly with AP's consciously aiding and abetting terrorists 
being among the possibilities.
>>  I'm gonna need a bit more specific of a cite than this.
>>   
>> I'll see your majicthise, so to speak, and raise you a SusanShelley:
>>     
>
>   
>> http://www.extremeink.com/susan/cnn.htm
>>     
>
>   
>> That ought to be enough detail to refresh your memory and also to put 
>> you on the trail of more substantive commentary if you choose to pursue it.
>>     
>
>  Indeed. Commentary like this, perhaps?
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/jordan_4-17.pdf
>
>  "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
> conservative."
>
>   
Nope. The guy's like a bad cop or a pedophile priest, trading on the 
authority and trust that comes with the office for personal gain, to 
escape personal responsibility, without regard to the damage the 
transgression does to the entire profession. Like the two examples I 
cited, Jordan has no place in the profession.

>  I think you misunderstand me. I'm not a fan of the media in general. I just
> don't think it's as simple as having a "liberal" or "conservative" bias.
> (Well, except Fox, or Mother Jones, or what have you. They really do have an
> explicit bias.) 
Mother Jones and various other, similar publications make no bones about 
their partisanship although they prefer to cloak their bias in what they 
perceive as noble causes. Fox, and CNN, AP, CBS, ABC, the New York Times 
and Washington Post lay claim to the title of journalism, the clear 
definition of which requires a ruthless disregard of personal bias. CNN, 
AP and CBS have, by the actions of important employees or indefensible 
actions by unnamed employees, diluted their claim to be journalistic 
organizations. Whether ineptitude or bias, either erodes their claim on 
public trust.

If you want to throw Fox into that group you'll have to provide examples 
of similarly egregious behavior.

> What the general media is biased towards is making money. That
> results in more complicated distortions than just 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
>   
The general damned near everything is biased toward making money. Other 
then hobbies and charities, what else is there?

Of course they're "biased" towards making money. Those organizations 
that weren't collected their Darwin prize and are no longer heard from.

The neat thing about capitalism, and it works just as brilliantly in the 
journalism profession as anywhere else, is that the hoi-polloi decide, 
collectively, on the continued survival of their betters.

The reason, ultimately, that Dan Rather decided to retire a year early 
isn't because of his ethical transgression but because the damage he'd 
done to the credibility, the *market*value*, of the CBS brand which, 
after all, is dependent on people having some reason to believe that 
what Dan Rather or his successors, tells them has been subject to the 
attention of thoughtful, capable adults who take seriously their 
responsibility to inform the public without regard to their personal 
agenda. Rather's crime, whether due to ineptitude or bias was to 
undercut that belief and with it the value of CBS stock.
>> Sorry, the volume of crimes reduces individual transgressions to 
>> indistinguishableness. I will do my best to bring new outrages to your 
>> attention in the future however.
>>     
>
>  Particularly the "neo-anti-Semitism" charge. For example, I don't think
> our (the United States') long-term interests are served by our staunch
> support of Israel. I'd be quite happy to reduce our dependence on oil and
> leave them to fend for themselves. (If the environment there is too inimical,
> maybe they could move to South America, a proposal that was floated back in
> the 1940's when Israel was being created.)
>   
You're free to believe that but I'd be interested to know what other 
regimes in the area might have a confluence of interest with the U.S. 
other then on a purely mercantile basis? The only other nation in the 
area with a passing acquaintance with democracy is Egypt and that'd be a 
pretty tenuous acquaintanceship. For the rest it's a choice between a 
moderately repressive monarchy, a virulently repressive monarchy, a 
repressive theocracy or various flavors of "people's" republics. There's 
simply no other nations in the region with which to have a friendly 
relationship.

Are you proposing that nations actively undermining or barely tolerant 
of U.S. interests be treated no differently from the single nation in 
the region with which the U.S. does share values and goals?

As for reducing our dependence on oil, I suggest you take a trip up to 
Mackinac Island to revisit the halcyon days that preceded that dependence.
>  Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?
>   
Yup.
>>>  "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
>>>                               Adlai Stevenson
>>>       
>> An unexpectedly revelatory sig.
>>     
>
>  "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
>  - Inigo Montoya.
>   
The move from disdainful intellectual to fictional swordsman as a source 
of quotes is a move in the right direction but that's more a function of 
how poorly you started then how far you've come.


From akulkis at hotpop.com  Fri Jan  5 21:42:17 2007
From: akulkis at hotpop.com (Aaron Kulkis)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:42:17 +0300
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <459C3139.2080207@sbcglobal.net>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B59@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
	<459C3139.2080207@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <459F0C89.3060809@hotpop.com>

allen wrote:
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>  You're long on conclusions and short on specific examples, from what
>> I can see. Hint hint.
>>
>>  Sincerely,
>>
>>  Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317
>>   
> Well, there's Rathergate.
> 
> More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant that AP has 
> grown fond of.
> 


Recently, also AP made up a story about 6 Shi'ites being burned alive
at a Sunni mosque in downtown Baghdad...  quoting anonymous sources.
Both US Army and Iraqi Police said we have no knowledge of this --
can you get some specific information.

AP, instead of responding with information which could be followed up
and investigated, did the "how dare you try to censor us" scheme.

Sorry, those of us not in the journalism business expect that when
a reporter reports something, that he or she has actual, firsthand
knowledge of what he's reporting, not merely repeating whatever
propaganda shows up in the fax machine...


> Dipping back into the past a bit there's CNN's deep concern with their 
> Iraqi employees which resulted in CNN becoming a defacto arm of the 
> Iraqi Ministry of Information. I believe the New York Times has gotten 
> in a couple of licks on what's left of the concept of journalistic 
> ethics as well although I'm not sure whether neo-anti-Semitism or the 
> denial of global warming denial merits the bigger pie in the face.
> 
> Allen



From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Mon Jan  8 09:30:45 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:30:45 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B68@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: Aaron Kulkis

> > More recently there's the illusive Iraqi police lieutenant 
> > that AP has grown fond of.
> 
> Recently, also AP made up a story about 6 Shi'ites being burned alive
> at a Sunni mosque in downtown Baghdad...  quoting anonymous sources.
> Both US Army and Iraqi Police said we have no knowledge of this --
> can you get some specific information.

 Um... no. they didn't quote anonymous sources, they quoted the "illusive
[sic] Iraqui police lieutenant". That's the story we're talking about.

> AP, instead of responding with information which could be followed up
> and investigated, did the "how dare you try to censor us" scheme.

 Um... no, they didn't. They stood by their story, insisted that Jamil
Hussien (their main source) exists, and found other witnesses. And, gee,
it turns out that the guy really *does* exist, despite initial denial by
Iraqi officials.

 At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, at least tangentially, I direct
your attention here:

 http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001259.html

> Sorry, those of us not in the journalism business expect that when
> a reporter reports something, that he or she has actual, firsthand
> knowledge of what he's reporting

 Again: Um... no. If you were right... why bother with interviews?

> not merely repeating whatever propaganda shows up in the fax machine...

 Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that you're right. We'll
assume (though this is by no means established) that AP was, in fact,
lax in this matter and put too much credence in a source of dubious
reliability.

 Now... what substantive difference does this make? Are you alleging
that the situation in Iraq is being badly reported overall? If so, in
what way?

 Is the level of violence being exaggerated? If so, in what way? Aside
from terminology, I don't see anything like an order-of-magnitude
difference between what's reported in the "MSM" and, say, what you
read here:

 http://www.usafns.com/date-_from_the_pentagon.shtml

 Are positive steps not being reported? Again, I don't see any real
evidence of that. What's the biggest positive sign in Iraq that you
think hasn't been highlighted?

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                        (313) 227-2317

 "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at
              the results." -- Winston Churchill
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Mon Jan  8 11:08:28 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:08:28 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B69@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>

> From: allen
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
> >  As I said, it was stupid.

> Nope. Dan Rather, whatever his shortcomings, isn't stupid. He's 
> arrogant, unprofessional and petty but he's not stupid. Minimizing the 
> transgression by ascribing it to stupidity doesn't properly encompass 
> the scope and seriousness of that transgression.

 Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.
On the other hand, one good thing about the U.S. is that, at least
sometimes, stupid mistakes by those in positions of authority actually
have lead to negative consequences for them. Nixon had to resign, and
so did Rather.

> >  Um, that's a rather slanted presentation of the actual timeline. The
> > blogs move a lot faster than the journalists, because of their very
> > natures. Doesn't mean that the so-called 'MSM' didn't investigate, and
> > *report*, too.

> As I recall, the story was replayed with nothing in the way of 
> contradiction and no evidence of competitive investigation until the guy 
> with Microsoft Word on his computer put up the infamous jpg making it 
> all but impossible to ignore questions of the credibility of 
> the story.

 Not according to this:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

 "The initial skepticism appeared in posts by Buckhead also known as Harry W.
MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such
as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation and who had
helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment
of President Bill Clinton.

>From there, the story was picked up by the Drudge Report and broke into mass
media outlets, including the Associated Press and the major television news
networks, as well as getting serious attention from conservative writers such
as National Review Online's Jim Geraghty. The first newspaper article questioning
the documents appeared in The Washington Post on September 10. However, the
September 9 edition of the American Broadcasting Company's Nightline made mention
of the controversy, along with an article on the ABC News website."

 The CBS broadcast was on September 8th.

> >  No, I was pointing to the utter lack of positive evidence for Bush
> > actually completing his National Guard service, the kind of evidence that
> > other people can produce.
> >
> >  Positive evidence would make for a better case, and the desire for that
> > corrupted Rather's judgement. But the *lack* of evidence is also highly
> > suggestive.

> "Positive evidence"? Would that be the sort of evidence that 
> would prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Objection, your honor!

 Y'know, my phrasing there was ambiguous. There are two interesting types
of evidence here. The allegation is that "Bush did not complete his National
Guard duties statisfactoraly but was honorably discharged anyway."

 1. As I stated, there's no actual evidence of Bush doing so. The kind of
paperwork that the vast majority of Guard veterans can produce... he can't.
This is negative evidence. Despite a strong political motivation to produce
it, it just hasn't appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

 2. Rather was looking for positive evidence of Bush failing to fulfill his
duties - that is to say, evidence of *not* doing so rather than a lack of
evidence of doing so. He was stupid about how he vetted such evidence, though,
and he was conned because he failed to check his facts properly.

> >  You might want to check on recent developments in the "Jamil Hussein"
> > front.

> You're kind of missing the point. AP would like to present themselves as 
> credible, even-handed, thorough. But that goal's hardly achieved if 
> they're no better as a source of information then the U.S. military 
> which is not a news agency.

 Ah, but we haven't established that they are not. The police lieutenant
actually exists and has been confirmed. Other witnesses to the burning have
been produced. Not all the facts in the original story appear to be correct,
I agree.

 However, I do *not* see evidence of a deliberate attempt to falsify stories
or even a lack of normal fact-checking here. I've had first-hand knowledge of
a few events that have made it into a news story. In *no* case were the events
as reported 100% correct. What's your experience in this area?

> >  "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
> > conservative."
> >   
> Nope. The guy's like a bad cop or a pedophile priest, trading on the 
> authority and trust that comes with the office for personal gain, to 
> escape personal responsibility, without regard to the damage the 
> transgression does to the entire profession. Like the two examples I 
> cited, Jordan has no place in the profession.

 Uh, gee, and "liberal and conservative" alike *agree* with you.

> If you want to throw Fox into that group you'll have to provide examples 
> of similarly egregious behavior.

 I know of no other major news organization that has defended *in court* their
right to distort news and outright lie:

 http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

> >  Particularly the "neo-anti-Semitism" charge. For example, I don't think
> > our (the United States') long-term interests are served by our staunch
> > support of Israel. I'd be quite happy to reduce our dependence on oil and
> > leave them to fend for themselves.

> You're free to believe that but I'd be interested to know what other 
> regimes in the area might have a confluence of interest with the U.S. 
> other then on a purely mercantile basis?

 None that I know of. But if we didn't need the oil there we wouldn't have
to care. Supporting Israel is like building a greenhouse to plant roses in
Antarctica. One has to wonder at the expense, and whether the benefits
justify it. We might help them out of humanitarian impulses but, well, we
don't have a great record there. I mean, it's a shame Darfour doesn't have
any oil...

 I don't wish Israel ill per se but I don't see why (aside from convenient
bases near the oil) *we* need to pony up the kind of dough (not to mention
political capital) we have been to maintain them. If their situation is
that untenable, well, like I said they could probably buy a *lot* of land
in South America.

> The only other nation in the area with a passing acquaintance with democracy
> is Egypt and that'd be a pretty tenuous acquaintanceship. For the rest it's
> a choice between a moderately repressive monarchy, a virulently repressive
> monarchy, a repressive theocracy or various flavors of "people's" republics.
> There's simply no other nations in the region with which to have a friendly 
> relationship.

 You're right, but we support those regimes anyway, because they have the oil.
We cozy up to thugocracies like, say, Iraq in the 1980s. We organize coups to
overthrow democratically elected governments to install unpopular monarchies
like, say, Iran. (Boy, *that* sure paid off for us, didn't it?) We support the
Saudi regime even as they violently repress their own population and work to
redirect the blame toward us. (And gee, that really paid off for the people in
the World Trade Center, didn't it? What nationality were 15 of the 19 hijackers
again?) 

> Are you proposing that nations actively undermining or barely tolerant 
> of U.S. interests be treated no differently from the single nation in 
> the region with which the U.S. does share values and goals?

 They'd have a lot less ability to mess with us if we weren't giving them
hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And they wouldn't have quite the same
motivation if we weren't helping to 'stabilize' the region by supporting
violent thugocracies.

 By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
the terrorists those regions spawn. Here, let me pop another .sig quote in
here:

 "U.S. planes have thus far showered defoliant on more than 200,000
  acres, killing not just coca plants but entire ecosystems: damaging
  legitimate crops, poisoning water supplies, killing fish and livestock,
  uprooting entire villages, and causing people to suffer fevers,
  diarrhea, allergies and rashes.

  And that's why they hate us: because, to keep drugs out of Bobby
  Brown's glove box, we kill peasants in Putumayo. If we did this kind
  of thing to the Arabs, they'd actually have the kind of beef with us
  that they think they do."

      - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"

 I just think it'd be awfully nice to produce the kind of tech that would
drastically reduce our dependency on oil. Such tech would spread, too. And
then we'd have a similarly drastic drop in the price of oil. At that point
I'd like to see how well people would like an Islamic theocracy in a poor
economy. I figure within a decade the whole area would look like Afghanistan
under the Taliban.

 Read this article I quoted at Aaron five days ago on this list:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full

 See below for some ideas to keep in mind when you read about the
"Manhattan Project" proposal.

> As for reducing our dependence on oil, I suggest you take a trip up to 
> Mackinac Island to revisit the halcyon days that preceded that dependence.

 I'm somewhat flummoxed here. Do you *really* believe that the only alternative
to the Hummer is an agrarian economy? On the other hand, I find it hard to
credit that you'd use so clumsy a rhetorical ploy. I really don't know what to
think, to be honest.

 Let's make things clear. I am not a Luddite, and I while I've enjoyed visiting
Macinac Island many times and hope to take my kids there again in the future,
I don't plan on living there. However, I can visualize quite a few alternatives
that let me keep my computer and car, but still drastically reduce our dependence
on foreign oil. Consider, for example, a quote from one of my .sigs that went out
when I quoted that boston.com article to Aaron:

 "Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
  would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
      - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"

 We had austerity programs in WWII. Why not in the "War on Terror"?

 But we can go much further than this. How about investing in nuclear power?
Consider pebble-bed reactors which are *extremely* safe and scale well, even
in a modular fashion. What about more daring (at least politically, though not
in any engineering sense) ideas like using this (read the whole article for
full effect, including the note about disposing of the nuclear waste):

 http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship7.htm

 to launch these:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

 (Note that recent advances in solar cell technology have dramatically
increased the efficiency beyond the 28% quoted there. Also note the wikipedia
article assumes chemical-fueled lauch costs, not nuclear.)

 These kinds of things were seriously proposed, and designs worked on, back
in the 1970s. We could do them *much* better now.

> >  Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?
> Yup.

 Ah. Not giving unconditional support for Israel equals active dislike of
Jews. Right...

> The move from disdainful intellectual to fictional swordsman as a source 
> of quotes is a move in the right direction but that's more a function of 
> how poorly you started then how far you've come.

 Well, as long as we're being snide, how about one more disdainful
intellectual... :->

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                    (313) 227-2317

 "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
                    - Bertrand Russell
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jan  8 15:50:55 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:50:55 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B69@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B69@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <45A2AEAF.8020104@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: allen
>> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>     
>>>  As I said, it was stupid.
>>>       
>
>   
>> Nope. Dan Rather, whatever his shortcomings, isn't stupid. He's 
>> arrogant, unprofessional and petty but he's not stupid. Minimizing the 
>> transgression by ascribing it to stupidity doesn't properly encompass 
>> the scope and seriousness of that transgression.
>>     
>
>  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.
> On the other hand, one good thing about the U.S. is that, at least
> sometimes, stupid mistakes by those in positions of authority actually
> have lead to negative consequences for them. Nixon had to resign, and
> so did Rather.
>   
As I wrote; arrogant, unprofessional and petty. Applicable to Rather 
when he was finally caught as Nixon unless you're using the Forrest Gump 
definition of "stupid".

You ought to read the links you dig up though. Since the subject under 
discussion is the left-wing slant in the mainstream media, the 
information that:

"The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."

suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
stupid does" was catching around CBS.
>  Not according to this:
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate
>
>  "The initial skepticism appeared in posts by Buckhead also known as Harry W.
> MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such
> as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation and who had
> helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment
> of President Bill Clinton.
>
> >From there, the story was picked up by the Drudge Report and broke into mass
> media outlets, including the Associated Press and the major television news
> networks, as well as getting serious attention from conservative writers such
> as National Review Online's Jim Geraghty. The first newspaper article questioning
> the documents appeared in The Washington Post on September 10. However, the
> September 9 edition of the American Broadcasting Company's Nightline made mention
> of the controversy, along with an article on the ABC News website."
>
>  The CBS broadcast was on September 8th.
>
>   
Hardly a comprehensive review of the episode. The Wikipedia article 
doesn't, for instance, identify whether it was Dan Rather's professional 
misconduct, the validity of the documents or the temerity of mere 
bloggers that the Washington Post was covering. *One* controversy, as I 
recall, was whether pajama-wearing bloggers were inherently noncredible 
regardless of the quality of their journalism and evidence and 
microphone-wearing journalists were unquestionably credible.
>> "Positive evidence"? Would that be the sort of evidence that 
>> would prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Objection, your honor!
>>     
>
>  Y'know, my phrasing there was ambiguous. There are two interesting types
> of evidence here. The allegation is that "Bush did not complete his National
> Guard duties statisfactoraly but was honorably discharged anyway."
>
>  1. As I stated, there's no actual evidence of Bush doing so. The kind of
> paperwork that the vast majority of Guard veterans can produce... he can't.
> This is negative evidence. Despite a strong political motivation to produce
> it, it just hasn't appeared.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
>
>  2. Rather was looking for positive evidence of Bush failing to fulfill his
> duties - that is to say, evidence of *not* doing so rather than a lack of
> evidence of doing so. He was stupid about how he vetted such evidence, though,
> and he was conned because he failed to check his facts properly.
>
>   
I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.

If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do. If you 
can't find proof that Bush did something wrong, charge him with not 
having enough proof that he did everything right.
>> You're kind of missing the point. AP would like to present themselves as 
>> credible, even-handed, thorough. But that goal's hardly achieved if 
>> they're no better as a source of information then the U.S. military 
>> which is not a news agency.
>>     
>
>  Ah, but we haven't established that they are not. The police lieutenant
> actually exists and has been confirmed. Other witnesses to the burning have
> been produced. Not all the facts in the original story appear to be correct,
> I agree.
>
>  However, I do *not* see evidence of a deliberate attempt to falsify stories
> or even a lack of normal fact-checking here. I've had first-hand knowledge of
> a few events that have made it into a news story. In *no* case were the events
> as reported 100% correct. What's your experience in this area?
>
>   
That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
absence of evidence of bias.

The only defense news organizations have against charges of bias, or 
should have, is punctilious adherence to the canons of the profession. 
That defense was obviated for some considerable length of time as TV 
news concentrated short-cycle news-disseminating power in the hands a 
very few news organizations and that built upon the dilution of the 
journalistic ethic by the promotion of advocacy journalism as typified 
by Walter Duranty and later, Walter Cronkite.

You don't have to defend your credibility when the truth is whatever 
comes out of your typewriter or out of your mouth.
>>>  "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal and
>>> conservative."
>>>   
>>>       
>> Nope. The guy's like a bad cop or a pedophile priest, trading on the 
>> authority and trust that comes with the office for personal gain, to 
>> escape personal responsibility, without regard to the damage the 
>> transgression does to the entire profession. Like the two examples I 
>> cited, Jordan has no place in the profession.
>>     
>
>  Uh, gee, and "liberal and conservative" alike *agree* with you.
>
>   
Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
profession. That he does is a mark against the profession although that 
clearly doesn't trouble those who chose to hire/deal with him. If 
liberal and conservative commentators agreed that a bad cop done wrong 
we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. That's not the same thing as 
drawing the conclusion that the theoretical cop or the very real Eason 
Jordan has no business plying their previous trade. In both cases 
they've proven themselves unqualified.
>> If you want to throw Fox into that group you'll have to provide examples 
>> of similarly egregious behavior.
>>     
>
>  I know of no other major news organization that has defended *in court* their
> right to distort news and outright lie:
>
>  http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
>
>   
No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
the news and outright lie so you're still in need of some case of 
similarly egregious behavior. And please, no more sites like the one you 
linked. I spend some time on these replies and crudely propagandistic 
sites such as the one you linked suggest a lack of regard for that effort.
>  None that I know of. But if we didn't need the oil there we wouldn't have
> to care. Supporting Israel is like building a greenhouse to plant roses in
> Antarctica. One has to wonder at the expense, and whether the benefits
> justify it. We might help them out of humanitarian impulses but, well, we
> don't have a great record there. I mean, it's a shame Darfour doesn't have
> any oil...
>
>   
It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
causation via repetition. It's not as if Israel shares a border or has 
ever invaded an oil-producing Arab nation. If anything, the "it's all 
about the oil" argument directs U.S. interest to side with Arab, 
oil-producing nations, not Israel. At no time since the founding of 
Israel have Arab oil fields been under threat from the Israeli military 
or from the U.S. military.

As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.
>  I don't wish Israel ill per se but I don't see why (aside from convenient
> bases near the oil) *we* need to pony up the kind of dough (not to mention
> political capital) we have been to maintain them. If their situation is
> that untenable, well, like I said they could probably buy a *lot* of land
> in South America.
>   
You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, geographic 
neighborhood of Israel. If anything, the presence of Israel has served 
to maintain peace in the Mideast since, as a lightning rod for 
traditional Arab enmities as exemplified by the current Sunni-Shiite 
problems in Iraq, Israel has prevented more widespread conflict from 
erupting.

As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
petroleum reserves. If the cost of, relative, peace in the Mideast is 
American dollars and Israeli blood then both are well spent. Among the 
potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder in the 
Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
to regional pressures.
>   
>> The only other nation in the area with a passing acquaintance with democracy
>> is Egypt and that'd be a pretty tenuous acquaintanceship. For the rest it's
>> a choice between a moderately repressive monarchy, a virulently repressive
>> monarchy, a repressive theocracy or various flavors of "people's" republics.
>> There's simply no other nations in the region with which to have a friendly 
>> relationship.
>>     
>
>  You're right, but we support those regimes anyway, because they have the oil.
> We cozy up to thugocracies like, say, Iraq in the 1980s. We organize coups to
> overthrow democratically elected governments to install unpopular monarchies
> like, say, Iran. (Boy, *that* sure paid off for us, didn't it?) We support the
> Saudi regime even as they violently repress their own population and work to
> redirect the blame toward us. (And gee, that really paid off for the people in
> the World Trade Center, didn't it? What nationality were 15 of the 19 hijackers
> again?) 
>   
You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
balance I don't find all that much to fault. The U.S. no more overthrew 
the democratically elected government of Iran then a shout is an 
avalanche. Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes, 
unignorable even then, not only did the CIA save hundreds of thousands 
of Iranian lives but the lives of those a communist Iran would have 
killed as part of the process of establishing a people's paradise in the 
neighboring countries.

And yeah, overthrowing the communist regime in Iran did pay off quite 
well for us for quite a while. Of course, there's no victory so total 
that it can't be undone by an incompetent and Jimmy Carter was every bit 
of that.

You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
Israel.
>> Are you proposing that nations actively undermining or barely tolerant 
>> of U.S. interests be treated no differently from the single nation in 
>> the region with which the U.S. does share values and goals?
>>     
>
>  They'd have a lot less ability to mess with us if we weren't giving them
> hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And they wouldn't have quite the same
> motivation if we weren't helping to 'stabilize' the region by supporting
> violent thugocracies.
>
>   
Which doesn't really answer the question.

Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
values and goals?

>  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
> the terrorists those regions spawn. Here, let me pop another .sig quote in
> here:
>
>  "U.S. planes have thus far showered defoliant on more than 200,000
>   acres, killing not just coca plants but entire ecosystems: damaging
>   legitimate crops, poisoning water supplies, killing fish and livestock,
>   uprooting entire villages, and causing people to suffer fevers,
>   diarrhea, allergies and rashes.
>
>   And that's why they hate us: because, to keep drugs out of Bobby
>   Brown's glove box, we kill peasants in Putumayo. If we did this kind
>   of thing to the Arabs, they'd actually have the kind of beef with us
>   that they think they do."
>
>       - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
>
>   
Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
would you characterize your views?

And you don't do yourself any credit by quoting Bill Maher. Whatever the 
shortcomings of the anti-drug policy of the past few decades, and they 
are manifold, they won't be redressed by smirking mirror-gazers like Maher.

>  I just think it'd be awfully nice to produce the kind of tech that would
> drastically reduce our dependency on oil. Such tech would spread, too. And
> then we'd have a similarly drastic drop in the price of oil. At that point
> I'd like to see how well people would like an Islamic theocracy in a poor
> economy. I figure within a decade the whole area would look like Afghanistan
> under the Taliban.
>
>  Read this article I quoted at Aaron five days ago on this list:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full
>
>  See below for some ideas to keep in mind when you read about the
> "Manhattan Project" proposal.
>
>   
I don't. The Manhattan Project made sense in the context of a world-wide 
conflict but other then survival the only reason to develop technology 
is to make an honest buck. Since all these tedious "alternative" energy 
projects are elevated far above vulgar considerations of profit and 
there's no war in the offing, the only reason for the development of 
alternative energy sources are the conceits of the wealthy. When the 
technology makes sense, i.e. it solves a problem people don't have to 
have their arm twisted to acknowledge, subsidies, penalties, trading 
credits and regulatory agencies won't be necessary. People'll be lining 
up to get access to the technology waving fists full of dollars, euros 
or renminbis.
>> As for reducing our dependence on oil, I suggest you take a trip up to 
>> Mackinac Island to revisit the halcyon days that preceded that dependence.
>>  I'm somewhat flummoxed here. Do you *really* believe that the only alternative
>> to the Hummer is an agrarian economy? On the other hand, I find it hard to
>> credit that you'd use so clumsy a rhetorical ploy. I really don't know what to
>> think, to be honest.
>>     
(friggin' mailreader editor....

The agrarian economy *is* the alternative not to the Hummer but to free 
enterprise which results in, among other things, the Hummer.

The single source of wealth in the world is capitalism and the extent to 
which freedom of choice is circumscribed that's the extent to which we 
move back toward the doubtful benefits of an agrarian economy.


>>  Let's make things clear. I am not a Luddite, and I while I've enjoyed visiting
>> Macinac Island many times and hope to take my kids there again in the future,
>> I don't plan on living there. However, I can visualize quite a few alternatives
>> that let me keep my computer and car, but still drastically reduce our dependence
>> on foreign oil. Consider, for example, a quote from one of my .sigs that went out
>> when I quoted that boston.com article to Aaron:
>>
>>     
One of the things that's wrong with Mackinac Island is that it's so 
drastically sanitized so as not to be too offensive to delicate, modern 
sensibilities. If you want to give your kids an idea of how delightful 
cars are you'll have to find someplace where the urine-soaked horse 
manure is three feet thick.

With that, you should pardon the expression, foundation, you can 
experience the full effect of a muscle-powered economy. I recommend 
cooler weather for those of a more delicate constitution but for the 
full effect a week or so of wet weather is necessary - the ubiquity of 
board sidewalks in TV western towns takes on a whole, new importance - 
followed by a couple of weeks of warm, dry weather.

I recommend "The good old days--they were terrible!" by Otto Bettmann. 
You won't ever look at a covered dish the same way again.

>>  "Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
>>   would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
>>       - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
>>
>>  We had austerity programs in WWII. Why not in the "War on Terror"?
>>
>>     
We also had enemy alien internment camps during World War II. Just how 
far do you want to go with the metaphor?

Besides, Rocket scientist Bill Maher probably hasn't heard the news, but 
GM thinks there's enough consumer interest in plug-in hybrids to make it 
a paying proposition. It might even be but it'll be GM money being 
squandered if GM is wrong. Since GM enjoys the mind-concentrating 
benefit of (organizational) hanging they'll be much more inclined then 
some ecological paladin to cut off a project that makes no economic sense.

I'll let you in on a nifty secret about plug-in hybrids that ought to 
set the hearts of all the greenies you know, aflutter.

One of the big problems with all of the various alternative energy 
schemes is that they're periodic, unpredictable or both. The sun rises 
and you get electricity, the sun sets you don't. The wind blows, you get 
electricity, the wind stops, you don't, etc. The dog that never seems to 
bark is what to do when the sun goes down, the temperature stays up and 
the wind stops blowing. That's when all the money that wasn't spent on 
energy storage, because it's so expensive, starts to pinch.

But, if you've got all those zillions of plug-in hybrids - look a couple 
of paragraphs up - drinking up electricity during the day you've got 
bags of electrical storage capacity for "free". Not really for free of 
course but available for any number of uses other then making the family 
jalopy putter silently around town.

Extend the utility, increase the value. If you can "top off" the buggy 
during the day when the sun's shining then you a way to market at least 
some of that periodic, unpredictable or both, electricity. Maybe even 
enough to make all those icky Arabs poor again not that I'm particularly 
thrilled by that.

>>  But we can go much further than this. How about investing in nuclear power?
>> Consider pebble-bed reactors which are *extremely* safe and scale well, even
>> in a modular fashion. What about more daring (at least politically, though not
>> in any engineering sense) ideas like using this (read the whole article for
>> full effect, including the note about disposing of the nuclear waste):
>>
>>  http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship7.htm
>>
>>  to launch these:
>>
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite
>>
>>  (Note that recent advances in solar cell technology have dramatically
>> increased the efficiency beyond the 28% quoted there. Also note the wikipedia
>> article assumes chemical-fueled lauch costs, not nuclear.)
>>
>>  These kinds of things were seriously proposed, and designs worked on, back
>> in the 1970s. We could do them *much* better now.
>>
>>     
Yeah, I've been reading about them for a while. There's quite a bit of 
development going on with gas-cooled pebble-bed reactors. Periodically I 
look up the Matsushita PBR that's supposed to go into operation in 
Galena, Alaska. Haven't heard anything about it for a while but it does 
look interesting.

As far as powersats goes, it's a matter first, of efficient orbital 
transport. That problem seems to be resolving itself although we're 
still pretty early on the development curve. Still, with the successful 
winning of the X-prize by Rutan, Alan ( no relation dammit) and company 
and the point-to-point pretensions of Richard Branson, along with the 
recent, successful flight of Blue Origin, Richard Bezos reprise of the 
late, lamented Delta Clipper, thins are, you should once again pardon 
the expression, looking up.
>>>  Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?
>>>       
>> Yup.
>>     
>
>  Ah. Not giving unconditional support for Israel equals active dislike of
> Jews. Right...
>
>   
It doesn't cost me anything nor do I court any danger in denouncing you 
so why not?
>> The move from disdainful intellectual to fictional swordsman as a source 
>> of quotes is a move in the right direction but that's more a function of 
>> how poorly you started then how far you've come.
>>     
>
>  Well, as long as we're being snide, how about one more disdainful
> intellectual... :->
>
>  Sincerely,
>
>  Ray Ingles                                    (313) 227-2317
>
>  "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
>                     - Bertrand Russell
>   
Russell would have been a great deal more convincing if he'd displayed 
immortality or used the word "we" at the appropriate place.

Allen

Uncle!


From tesral at comcast.net  Tue Jan  9 04:32:29 2007
From: tesral at comcast.net (Garry Stahl)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:32:29 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] DCG revival
Message-ID: <45A3612D.5020007@comcast.net>

I realize it has been close to a week since I reported.

The meeting went well.  The remaining membership agreed with my
suggestions as a last ditch attempt to save the club.

To wit:

Downriver Commodore Group is Officially a Retro computing group.

Dropping to one meeting a month.  This will be the first Wednesday in
the Month at 7:00 PM  Because of previous commitments we will have a
meeting on the third Wednesday in January, after this it will be a
single meeting a month.

Dues are now $30 a year, $25 for over 65. 


The January 17 meeting will be about seeing what club hardware is in
working condition and seeing what we have to do to render it working. 
Of major concern are the 1541 disk drives.  All of which are very old
and the belts will doubtless need replacing.


Meeting Schedule:

Jan 17:  Check out the hardware.
Feb 7:  To be announced
March 7  To be announced
April 4  To be announced

Don't think that "To be announced" means nothing happening.  However the
results of the next meeting will have a lot to do with what we do after
that.

-- 
Garry  AKA  --Phoenix--  Rising above the Flames.

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Star Trek mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur
The Olde Phoenix Inn Http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com



From Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com  Tue Jan  9 10:31:17 2007
From: Raymond.Ingles at compuware.com (Ingles, Raymond)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:31:17 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
Message-ID: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B6E@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>


> From: allen
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:

> >  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.

> "The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
> producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
> resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."
> 
> suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
> stupid does" was catching around CBS.

 And a lot of people were ejected in disgrace from Nixon's administration,
too. I just think it's funny that I compared Rather's actions to Nixon's,
and you appear to think that means I'm *going easy on Rather*.

> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

> Hardly a comprehensive review of the episode.

 Well, if you can find such a review, I'd like to see it. I've presented
my memories and that article, you've presented your memories.

> I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
> just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.

 Apparently we have some alternate-reality bridge going on here, and
you're responding to messages from selgnI yaR. I do in fact believe, based
on the evidence (both positive and negative) in the article that I linked
to, that it's extremely probable that Bush didn't really fulfill his
obligations to the National Guard, and used the Guard to avoid service in
Vietnam.

 That's not the same thing as finding 'something, anything, that'll stick
to him'. For that kind of thing, you'll need to look at, e.g. Kenneth Star.

 :->

> If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
> a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
> that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do.

 Um, there's more to it than that. Y'know, like I actually pointed out.

> That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
> organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
> important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
> innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
> enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
> evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
> absence of evidence of bias.

 And yet, I haven't seen anything produced that contradicts the overall
accuracy of, say, the situation in Iraq. So far, the 'poster boy' story
of bias (the "Jamil Hussein" affair) has been shown to be credible in
essentially all confirmable. What else ya got?

> Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
> profession. That he does is a mark against the profession

 And I *agree* with you. But, as I've said and you've apparently not
read, over and over again, I *don't* think that the media is unbiased.
I think it's biased towards 'whatever makes money', and further distorted
by deliberate attemtps to shape and spin coverage by all comers.

 What you apparently seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
"they're all liberals" or something. Which manifestly isn't true.

> No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
> the news and outright lie...

 Yes, they (in the person of their corporate parent) very definitely did.
They very *specifically* advanced that argument in court.

> ... so you're still in need of some case of similarly egregious behavior.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

 I fail to see why the *exact same type of evidence* that you believe
proves *liberal* bias in other media sources does not apply to Fox News.

> And please, no more sites like the one you linked.

 Okay, here's the actual court decision:

  http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

 I particularly recommend for your consideration the top of page 4.

> It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
> for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
> causation via repetition.

 Well, it made a lot more sense in the period of the cold war, when it
got started. But the relationship has continued after that, and it's
still a convenient ally for military actions in the region. (Which,
again, wouldn't be necessary if we didn't need the oil.)

> As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
> community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
> the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
> enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
> those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.

 Tell ya what. How about we treat them the same way - either Darfour and
Israel get the same level of help from the U.S., or else they get the help
from the U.N.

 My point, if it's not too much trouble to ask you to address it, is: Why
do we fund Israel at several million dollars per day but not Darfour?

> You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
> strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
> industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
> reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, 
> geographic neighborhood of Israel.

 Name, say, your top three other reasons.

> As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
> left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
> citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
> helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
> petroleum reserves.

 Well, if you're right, then they *don't* need us. So why are we supporting
them again, even at political cost to ourselves?

> Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder
> in the Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
> to regional pressures.

 A. Why is disorder there a threat to the human race? Be specific.

 B. Is support for Israel a band-aid solution that cannot work indefinitely?

> You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
> with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
> realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
> balance I don't find all that much to fault.

 So, we (based on probable disinformation from Britain) overthrow an elected
government to impose a monarchy in Iran. That blows up on us later, so we fund
and supply a brutal dictator in his war against our former puppet, providing
him with satellite photos and analysis (which gave him information he could use
later to try to hide things from us). Then he slips form his leash and attacks
another country and we have to go in and stomp him with a full military
offensive.

 Meanwhile we are funding and supplying radical Islamist insurgents against
the USSR in another country, helping them learn how to run a guerilla war
against a superior military force.

> The U.S. no more overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran
> then a shout is an avalanche.

 That's, uh, a rather charitable reading of events.

> Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes

 The actual allegations of the 'communism' of Mossadeq came from Britain,
upset about losing control of Iranian oil, and appear to have been largely
disinformation. It wasn't really the key reason, anyway - they were worried
about a weak Iran being taken over by the USSR.

 I might diffidently suggest a possible alternative - convince Britan to
work with Iran on their oil negotiations, maybe even accepting a
less-than-desirable settlement from the British perspective, but one which
would cement Iran's relations with the West. (The US could have brokered
such a deal - we'd already saved Iran from a Soviet incursion once.) Britan
just wanted the oil, though, and the US wasn't willing to hold to the courage
of their convictions. And that led to, well...

> You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
> petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
> good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
> Israel.

 *If* we're going to do that, we should get more for our efforts. The
Saudi regime is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:

 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer

 And the fallout from that will be much worse from our perspective... if
we're still dependent on their oil.

> Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
> engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
> same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
> values and goals?

 Oversimplification. We don't have to treat Israel "the same as" the rest
of the Middle East; what I object to is the *major* amount of *unconditional*
support we offer without any apparent consideration of the ROI or
consequences.

> >  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
> > the terrorists those regions spawn.

> Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
> would you characterize your views?

 To "understand all" is *not* to "forgive all". I want to understand why that
schmuck killed all those Amish girls a few months back, but not because I
feel any need to justify or forgive him. I want to know why he did it so that
we can maybe prevent such things from happening in the future. Ideally by
arranging things so that nobody *wants* to, but if that can't be helped then
at least by predicting where and when it might happen so as to head it off.

 In the same way, it sure seems to me we can see the political and social
forces at work that result in murderous bastards crashing planes into buildings
without believing those crimes are in any way 'justified'. If you're in a
looney bin with some whacko who attacks anyone who says 'cannoli', you'd want
to know that and you'd probably avoid talking about Italian desserts. Of if
you had to, you'd take precautions.

 I'm interested in efficiency. The best ROI. The Middle East is a screwed-up
area, with old hatreds and ideologies blown far out of proportion to their
actual importance by the flood of money coming in from oil. Most Western
countries developed their economic power gradually, via a process of
developing their social, political, educational, and scientific systems in
tandem. In the Middle East, you've got a basically midieval social and
political system suddenly flush with cash from the geological accident of
a (currently) extremely valuable resource being concentrated there. (A
similar situation obtains in Africa, too. See, e.g. 'blood diamonds'.)

 Reducing the flow of oil money would cut their economic, political, and
military power and, long-term, *reduce* tensions in the area. When you
can't grab power by just seizing control of one industry you have to
govern a little more carefully.

> Whatever the shortcomings of the anti-drug policy of the past few decades, 
> and they are manifold, they won't be redressed by smirking mirror-gazers
> like Maher.

 A court jester can, at times, serve a useful function by pointing out
socially-ignored truths. I'm not particularly fond of the guy personally
either, but he makes (some) good points. In a similar vein, I think
James Cameron is an aldulterous schmuck, but he makes good movies.

> The Manhattan Project made sense in the context of a world-wide 
> conflict but other then survival the only reason to develop technology 
> is to make an honest buck.

 But 'survival' *is* at stake! Let me qoute the noted expert Allen Majorovic:
"Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder in
the Mideast is right up there."

 If you actually believe what you wrote, then why *not* put some money into
mitigating that danger, *especially* when it promises *other* large economic
benefits?

> Since all these tedious "alternative" energy projects are elevated far above
> vulgar considerations of profit

 Sez who?

> and there's no war in the offing

 I thought were were at "war on terror"?

> The agrarian economy *is* the alternative not to the Hummer but to free 
> enterprise which results in, among other things, the Hummer.

 And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"...

> The single source of wealth in the world is capitalism and the extent to 
> which freedom of choice is circumscribed that's the extent to which we 
> move back toward the doubtful benefits of an agrarian economy.

> One of the things that's wrong with Mackinac Island is that it's so 
> drastically sanitized so as not to be too offensive to delicate, modern 
> sensibilities.

 No kidding. And I make no pretensions that my weekend camping trips are
anything like actual wilderness survival. But they can still serve an
educational role, in the proper context.

> I recommend "The good old days--they were terrible!" by Otto Bettmann. 
> You won't ever look at a covered dish the same way again.

 I wouldn't be surprised. I'll put that on my wish list. As I *said*,
I'm no Luddite.

> >>  We had austerity programs in WWII. Why not in the "War on Terror"?

> We also had enemy alien internment camps during World War II. 
> Just how far do you want to go with the metaphor?

 Ah, so you think the austerity programs in WWII were a mistake too?
Why?

> One of the big problems with all of the various alternative energy 
> schemes is that they're periodic, unpredictable or both. The 
> sun rises and you get electricity, the sun sets you don't.

 Um, that's why I specifically proposed powersats. Not "all" of the
schemes fall into your classification.

> The dog that never seems to bark is what to do when the sun goes
> down, the temperature stays up and the wind stops blowing. That's
> when all the money that wasn't spent on energy storage, because
> it's so expensive, starts to pinch.

 Of course, generally energy use *plummets* at night, so that puts some
limits on the problem. And energy storage can be cheap... if you store
enough of it. You can get surprisingly good efficiency by pumping water
uphill during the day and running a hydroelectric turbine at night.

> Extend the utility, increase the value. If you can "top off" the buggy 
> during the day when the sun's shining then you a way to market at least 
> some of that periodic, unpredictable or both, electricity.

 Sounds good to me.

> As far as powersats goes, it's a matter first, of efficient orbital 
> transport. That problem seems to be resolving itself...

 But we won't get there with chemical rockets. They just don't have the
energy/mass we need. We need nuclear rockets. At that point space becomes
*dramatically* more economical, and huge new markets and resources become
available.

 But that can't be done without government help. And for a reason that no
Libertarian can disagree with - you need nuclear material to work with,
and (for reasons of national security) that must be tightly controlled.
Enriched Uranium hexafluoride isn't something you want casually available.

 So, what exactly *are* your objections to such a 'Manhattan Project'? Be
as specific as possible, please.

> >  Ah. Not giving unconditional support for Israel equals active dislike of
> > Jews. Right...

> It doesn't cost me anything

 I suppose if you don't value your credibility it doesn't cost you anything.

> nor do I court any danger in denouncing you 

 Nice that you accept unreservedly that I will behave in a civilized fashion
but feel no apparent desire to reciprocate.

> so why not?

 Because it's obviously false and simply a transparent, baselese rhetorical
ploy?

> >  "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
> >                     - Bertrand Russell
> >   
> Russell would have been a great deal more convincing if he'd displayed 
> immortality or used the word "we" at the appropriate place.

 Ah, the primary author of "Principia Mathematica" didn't think? A guy
who went from confirmed racist to condemning racism never thought? I
wonder what 'thoughts' you've come up with? :->

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                   (313) 227-2317

 "It will be generally found that those who sneer habitually at human nature
 and affect to despise it, are among its worst and least pleasant examples."
                            - Charles Dickens
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan  9 13:57:51 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:57:51 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?
In-Reply-To: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B6E@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
References: <41C33488FEC67C43BC564F5F086C21FF03A33B6E@nasa-dtw-ex001.nasa.cpwr.corp>
Message-ID: <45A3E5AF.7080403@sbcglobal.net>

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: allen
>> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>     
>>>  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.
>>>       
>> "The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
>> producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
>> resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."
>>
>> suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
>> stupid does" was catching around CBS.
>>     
>
>  And a lot of people were ejected in disgrace from Nixon's administration,
> too. I just think it's funny that I compared Rather's actions to Nixon's,
> and you appear to think that means I'm *going easy on Rather*.
>
>   
Oh, I don't think you're going easy on Rather so much as the industry 
and his employer went easy on him.

The damage Rather did to CBS' credibility and indeed the credibility of 
the industry certainly warranted a more dramatic end to his career then 
retiring a bit earlier then planned. But that's not what happened. What 
should have been a watershed - a high-ranking, experienced newsman 
caught using his position to advance a personal political agenda and in 
an insultingly clumsy manner at that - seems to have had essentially no 
effect on the industry at all as evidenced by the recent AP revelation.
>> I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
>> just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.
>>     
>
>  Apparently we have some alternate-reality bridge going on here, and
> you're responding to messages from selgnI yaR. I do in fact believe, based
> on the evidence (both positive and negative) in the article that I linked
> to, that it's extremely probable that Bush didn't really fulfill his
> obligations to the National Guard, and used the Guard to avoid service in
> Vietnam.
>
>   
You're free to be sure of whatever you choose but absent evidence who 
cares? There isn't evidence of any of the charges you bring up and the 
best you can do, being unwilling to let go of the episode, is to 
complain that the absence of evidence that everything was done right is 
proof that something was wrong. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
>> If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
>> a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
>> that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do.
>>     
>  Um, there's more to it than that. Y'know, like I actually pointed out.
>
>   
Nope, there isn't. There's a Wikipedia article of dubious value. That 
becomes clearer when you follow some of the links to something called 
"THE AWOL PROJECT" and get an eye full of what The AWOL Project 
considers evidence. Not unlike you definition actually in that a failure 
to provide sufficient evidence of innocence is considered evidence of guilt.
>> That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
>> organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
>> important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
>> innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
>> enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
>> evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
>> absence of evidence of bias.
>>     
>
>  And yet, I haven't seen anything produced that contradicts the overall
> accuracy of, say, the situation in Iraq. So far, the 'poster boy' story
> of bias (the "Jamil Hussein" affair) has been shown to be credible in
> essentially all confirmable. What else ya got?
>
>   
Well, there's the "Jamil Hussein" affair as evidence of bias. 
Single-sourcing controversial stories with no follow up and no attempt 
to vet the single source. Hardly the handiwork of an organization 
anxious to maintain a reputation for evenhandedness.
>> Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
>> profession. That he does is a mark against the profession
>>     
>
>  And I *agree* with you. But, as I've said and you've apparently not
> read, over and over again, I *don't* think that the media is unbiased.
> I think it's biased towards 'whatever makes money', and further distorted
> by deliberate attemtps to shape and spin coverage by all comers.
>   
That's hardly a bias worthy of consideration. Might as well charge the 
reporters with being biased towards breathing.

Of course the organizations are biased towards financial survival but 
knowing that doesn't prove bias in any other direction. Separate issue 
and an issue which quite clearly transcends considerations of wicked 
profits since governmental news agencies don't even attempt to hide bias.

If anything, the pursuit of profit is more likely to cause a news 
organization to avoid overt evidence of bias although obviously, it's no 
guarantee.
>  What you apparently seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
> "they're all liberals" or something. Which manifestly isn't true.
>
>   
You're wrong. It's just that the presumptions of the left hold a 
particular attraction for the news media an attraction that's not a 
recent phenomenon either.
>> No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
>> the news and outright lie...
>>     
>
>  Yes, they (in the person of their corporate parent) very definitely did.
> They very *specifically* advanced that argument in court.
>
>   
No, the link you provided was long on innuendo and implication and short 
of specifics. The site you pointed to has no more credibility then "The 
AWOL Project" and their artful interpretation of the court decisions 
does nothing to improve their credibility.
>> ... so you're still in need of some case of similarly egregious behavior.
>>     
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
>
>  I fail to see why the *exact same type of evidence* that you believe
> proves *liberal* bias in other media sources does not apply to Fox News.
>
>   
>> And please, no more sites like the one you linked.
>>     
>
>  Okay, here's the actual court decision:
>
>   http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
>
>  I particularly recommend for your consideration the top of page 4.
>   
And I recommend for *your* consideration the preceding paragraphs 
starting towards the top of page 3. They lost and now they're, or 
they've found interested parties, to spin the story more to their liking.
>   
>> It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
>> for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
>> causation via repetition.
>>     
>
>  Well, it made a lot more sense in the period of the cold war, when it
> got started. But the relationship has continued after that, and it's
> still a convenient ally for military actions in the region. (Which,
> again, wouldn't be necessary if we didn't need the oil.)
>
>   
OK, so you do plan to establish causation via repetition. That doesn't 
change the fact that every military clash between Isreal and it's 
neighbors resulted from either the crossing of Israel's borders by Arab 
military units or the evidence of imminent intention to do so. And none 
of this border crossing it should be noted involved an Arab state with 
enough oil in the ground to lubricate a door hinge.
>> As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
>> community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
>> the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
>> enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
>> those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.
>>     
>
>  Tell ya what. How about we treat them the same way - either Darfour and
> Israel get the same level of help from the U.S., or else they get the help
> from the U.N.
>
>   
Why?
>  My point, if it's not too much trouble to ask you to address it, is: Why
> do we fund Israel at several million dollars per day but not Darfour?
>
>   
And that's one way of avoiding the question of why U.N., that source of 
all that's good internationally, hasn't gotten it's collective thumb out 
of its collective ass and gone to help the folks in Darfour? It's not 
like there's much in the way of Oil-for-Food graft to protect any more 
and it can't be that complex to run a child prostitution service so why 
hasn't the U.N. performed even a lick of peace-keeping in Darfour?

American interest in the Mideast is in maintaining order in a 
strategically important part of the world, of which the trade in 
petroleum is part. If that's insufficiently noble then you'll just have 
to deal with it but it does provide a credible reason for not inserting 
U.S. military into Darfour.
>> You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
>> strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
>> industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
>> reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, 
>> geographic neighborhood of Israel.
>>     
>
>  Name, say, your top three other reasons.
>
>   
It's been a critical trading region since Biblical times. That's changed 
to a degree but it's still important. The Mideast provides land access 
between Asia and Africa which is of both military and economic importance.
>> As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
>> left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
>> citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
>> helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
>> petroleum reserves.
>>     
>
>  Well, if you're right, then they *don't* need us. So why are we supporting
> them again, even at political cost to ourselves?
>
>   
For the same reason we've always supported Israel: in this important 
part of the world there's no other nation with which we have common 
interests.
>> Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder
>> in the Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
>> to regional pressures.
>  A. Why is disorder there a threat to the human race? Be specific.
>   
Is there something about "widespread disorder in the Mideast" that 
requires clarification?
>  B. Is support for Israel a band-aid solution that cannot work indefinitely?
>
>   
If it were a "band-aid solution that cannot possibly work indefinitely" 
what difference would it make? Are the only solutions worthy of pursuit 
permanent and clearly so?
>> You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
>> with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
>> realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
>> balance I don't find all that much to fault.
>>     
>
>  So, we (based on probable disinformation from Britain) overthrow an elected
> government to impose a monarchy in Iran.
Yup.
>  That blows up on us later, so we fund
> and supply a brutal dictator in his war against our former puppet, providing
> him with satellite photos and analysis (which gave him information he could use
> later to try to hide things from us).
Yup.
>  Then he slips form his leash and attacks
> another country and we have to go in and stomp him with a full military
> offensive.
>
>   
Yeah, that about sums it up.

In a different world with different political forces at work or more 
perfect knowledge of the future there might have been other ways to 
protect America's interests but in this world I don't see what could 
have been done much differently.

What would you have preferred? A punctilious regard for the electoral 
outcome of the Iranian election of a communist government? Not providing 
weapons to Saddam Hussein? Not moving to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait?
>  Meanwhile we are funding and supplying radical Islamist insurgents against
> the USSR in another country, helping them learn how to run a guerilla war
> against a superior military force.
>
>   
So we shouldn't have funded and supplied radical Islamist insurgents 
against the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan? It's not like we had a lot 
of choice, it was the radical Islamist insurgents or nothing and 
"nothing" didn't seem like a good idea then and it still doesn't.
>> The U.S. no more overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran
>> then a shout is an avalanche.
>>     
>
>  That's, uh, a rather charitable reading of events.
>
>   
No, the election of Mossadegh was followed by the usual escalation of 
violence and repression against the political enemies of the incipient 
"people's" republic and, having fouled their nest in so doing, undercut 
whatever popular support the regime may have come into office with.
>> Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes
>>     
>
>  The actual allegations of the 'communism' of Mossadeq came from Britain,
> upset about losing control of Iranian oil, and appear to have been largely
> disinformation. It wasn't really the key reason, anyway - they were worried
> about a weak Iran being taken over by the USSR.
>
>  I might diffidently suggest a possible alternative - convince Britan to
> work with Iran on their oil negotiations, maybe even accepting a
> less-than-desirable settlement from the British perspective, but one which
> would cement Iran's relations with the West. (The US could have brokered
> such a deal - we'd already saved Iran from a Soviet incursion once.) Britan
> just wanted the oil, though, and the US wasn't willing to hold to the courage
> of their convictions. And that led to, well...
>   
The "allegations" of communism were certainly not undercut by the 
nationalization of the petroleum industry, collectivization of 
agriculture and repression of political enemies, a series of steps which 
by then could practically be put to music. It's not as if there weren't 
a whole slew of "people's" republics that has sprung into existence 
following exactly the steps that Iran was started on.
>   
>> You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
>> petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
>> good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
>> Israel.
>>     
>
>  *If* we're going to do that, we should get more for our efforts. The
> Saudi regime is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:
>
>   
Nope, that's what we should get for our efforts. Besides, that's what we 
did get for our efforts. Second-guessing may be fun but it's not 
particularly worthwhile.
>  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer
>
>  And the fallout from that will be much worse from our perspective... if
> we're still dependent on their oil.
>
>   
There's nothing special about the House of Saud from the U.S. point of 
view. They're there so we deal with them. Should we pretend they're not?

And, we're not dependent on Saudi oil. It's cheaper then the 
alternatives right now although even that's partly a function of 
technology and partly a function of politics. Given a reasonably period 
of time a sufficiently unreliable source of supply will deal itself out 
of the market by artificially inflating prices and with unpleasant but 
survivable repercussions.
>> Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
>> engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
>> same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
>> values and goals?
>>     
>
>  Oversimplification. We don't have to treat Israel "the same as" the rest
> of the Middle East; what I object to is the *major* amount of *unconditional*
> support we offer without any apparent consideration of the ROI or
> consequences.
>
>   
That's an easy objection to make since it's untrue. The amount of aid is 
a function of the utility of the regime to U.S. interests; none of the 
Arab regimes are worth spit in that regard. Aid is always contingent on 
political value but that's domestic and international political value so 
there's your ROI consideration.
>>>  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
>>> the terrorists those regions spawn.
>>>       
>> Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
>> would you characterize your views?
>>     
Uchh! Enough! I can't spend any more time at this.

Maybe you're quicker on the keyboard but this is just sucking up too 
much of my time.

If you want to continue, you bring the pizza I'll bring the beer. That 
way if we can't come to a meeting of the minds we can settle this like 
men: I've got Pepsi, I've Mentos and I know how to use them.

Allen


From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Tue Jan  9 18:45:37 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:45:37 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Where is the forum at?
Message-ID: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com>

I'm just wondering, what happened to the forum that was at forum.mdlug.org?

BTW - this is Kris Marshall (Karr0t) again. Same person, different 
e-mail. I'm stuck on a Windows box for the time being, but I'll have to 
fix this problem soon because Windows is making me hate computers.

No, seriously.


From driveray at ameritech.net  Tue Jan  9 19:46:47 2007
From: driveray at ameritech.net (Raymond McLaughlin)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:46:47 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Where is the forum at?
In-Reply-To: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com>
References: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <45A43777.6080806@ameritech.net>

Kristoffer Marshall wrote:
> I'm just wondering, what happened to the forum that was at forum.mdlug.org?

An enthusiastic member, Merrick, was maintaining the MDLUG forums on a
separate server, off of his home cable connection. He was doing this on
his own initiative, we just pointed the domain name at his IP.

Last September he notified me that he was shutting it down because it
was making funny noises. He made some mention of making a backup
archive, and I tentatively offered to let him host it on the new web
server. I have heard nothing since then. In December I removed the link
from our front page.

As I recall it was getting very little traffic, about 5 or so posts per
month.


> BTW - this is Kris Marshall (Karr0t) again. Same person, different 
> e-mail. I'm stuck on a Windows box for the time being, but I'll have to 
> fix this problem soon because Windows is making me hate computers.
> 
> No, seriously.

Ouch! I feel your pain! Stop it right now!

Raymond McLaughlin
Server Admin MDLUG


From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 15:04:58 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:04:58 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Where is the forum at?
In-Reply-To: <45A43777.6080806@ameritech.net>
References: <45A42921.10909@gmail.com> <45A43777.6080806@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <45A546EA.2080108@gmail.com>

Raymond McLaughlin wrote:
> Kristoffer Marshall wrote:
>   
>> I'm just wondering, what happened to the forum that was at forum.mdlug.org?
>>     
>
> An enthusiastic member, Merrick, was maintaining the MDLUG forums on a
> separate server, off of his home cable connection. He was doing this on
> his own initiative, we just pointed the domain name at his IP.
>
> Last September he notified me that he was shutting it down because it
> was making funny noises. He made some mention of making a backup
> archive, and I tentatively offered to let him host it on the new web
> server. I have heard nothing since then. In December I removed the link
> from our front page.
>
> As I recall it was getting very little traffic, about 5 or so posts per
> month.
>   
Ah-ha. I see. If I were to host a forum, all I would need to provide is 
a static IP address? I can possibly use my own server I use for my 
"company" if anyone would be interested. phpBB of course, but I don't 
know what version the backend sets up.


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Mon Jan 15 08:23:41 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:23:41 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
Message-ID: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>

http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/

Enjoy,
-- 
Dr. Robert J. Meier


From peter at petertheplumber.net  Mon Jan 15 10:39:08 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:39:08 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
In-Reply-To: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
References: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
Message-ID: <1168875548.8849.17.camel@plumber.site>

On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 08:23 -0500, Robert Meier wrote:
> http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/
> 
> Enjoy,

	Thanks Robert, I needed that!
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From tesral at comcast.net  Mon Jan 15 11:27:27 2007
From: tesral at comcast.net (Garry Stahl)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:27:27 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
In-Reply-To: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
References: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
Message-ID: <45ABAB6F.8050907@comcast.net>

Robert Meier wrote:
> http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/
>
> Enjoy,
>   

Unix underpants, snerk.

-- 
Garry  AKA  --Phoenix--  Rising above the Flames.

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Star Trek mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur
The Olde Phoenix Inn Http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com



From wolfger at gmail.com  Mon Jan 15 11:34:15 2007
From: wolfger at gmail.com (Wolfger)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:34:15 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] [LINUX] A little bit of Humor
In-Reply-To: <45ABAB6F.8050907@comcast.net>
References: <200701151323.l0FDNfxR005161@freehold.wwnet.com>
	<45ABAB6F.8050907@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3b00b3330701150834m39044c84g714c0e25e4b1ce93@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/15/07, Garry Stahl <tesral at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Unix underpants, snerk.

Yeah, really... Everybody knows it should have been "chmod -R 700 /*". *sigh*

-- 
Wolfger
http://randomsynapsefiring.eponym.com/
AOL IM: wolf4coyot
Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer
Skype: wolfger88


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan 16 13:06:50 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:06:50 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
Message-ID: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>

I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.

Allen


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan 16 14:24:52 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:24:52 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>

Never mind. I now know about badblocks.
allen wrote:
> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
>
> Allen
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   



From driveray at ameritech.net  Tue Jan 16 14:58:21 2007
From: driveray at ameritech.net (Raymond McLaughlin)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:58:21 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net> <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>

Don't for get about smartctl

allen wrote:
> Never mind. I now know about badblocks.
> allen wrote:
>> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
>> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
>> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
>>
>> Allen




From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jan 16 15:45:35 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:45:35 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net> <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>

Thanks, I found the "smart" suite but I was looking for something that 
was likely already installed. badblocks does just fine.

Now all I have to figure out is if having 822 bad blocks makes me the 
captain of the Titanic or one, lucky son-of-a-gun. Thoughts?

Allen

Raymond McLaughlin wrote:
> Don't for get about smartctl
>
> allen wrote:
>   
>> Never mind. I now know about badblocks.
>> allen wrote:
>>     
>>> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
>>> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
>>> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
>>>
>>> Allen
>>>       
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   



From radkins at impelind.com  Tue Jan 16 15:56:46 2007
From: radkins at impelind.com (Robert Adkins)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:56:46 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>

allen wrote:
> Thanks, I found the "smart" suite but I was looking for something that 
> was likely already installed. badblocks does just fine.
>
> Now all I have to figure out is if having 822 bad blocks makes me the 
> captain of the Titanic or one, lucky son-of-a-gun. Thoughts?
>
> Allen
>
>
>   
    Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.

    Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the 
bad sector disk out to pasture.

    Rob


From amajorov at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jan 17 10:49:18 2007
From: amajorov at sbcglobal.net (allen)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:49:18 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
Message-ID: <45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>

Robert Adkins wrote:
>
>     Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.
>
>     Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the 
> bad sector disk out to pasture.
>
>     Rob
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   

Any manufacturers you favor?

The drive that's pooping out is an IBM Deskstar which I understand has 
gotten the nickname "Deathstar".

I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.

Allen


From lists at addictz.org  Wed Jan 17 12:48:20 2007
From: lists at addictz.org (Mike)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:48:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net> <45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net> <45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com> <45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>

allen wrote:
> Robert Adkins wrote:
>>
>>     Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.
>>
>>     Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the
>> bad sector disk out to pasture.
>>
>>     Rob

>
> Any manufacturers you favor?
>
> The drive that's pooping out is an IBM Deskstar which I understand has
> gotten the nickname "Deathstar".
>
> I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.
>
> Allen

People are as varied as their preferred HD manufacturer of choice as they
are their linux distro of choice.  People will also quote their given
experiences with HDs failing, and someone else will be around to
completely refute what they say.

That being said, *I* will only buy Hitachi (replaced IBM), Western
Digital, or Seagate (even though I've had past experience with some
troubles working with Seagate support on getting SATA II drives firmware
updated).

The only manufacturer that I completely avoid is Maxtor, and probably for
more of a historical reason, than the current products reliability, back
in the day when I was doing a lot of building, Maxtor's crapped out all
the time on me.

I've had all kinds of HDs fail on me, Maxtor, WD, Seagate, IBM, etc.  And
its pretty random, and I'm sure a lot of other factors come into play like
case ventillation and such.

Just check out the Hot Deals forum at Anandtech and see what HD deals roll
through there, and get a good price.

Mike





From kentech at provide.net  Wed Jan 17 13:12:18 2007
From: kentech at provide.net (Kenneth C Coe Jr)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:12:18 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
	<45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
	<11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
Message-ID: <45AE6702.2090706@provide.net>

Mike wrote:
> allen wrote:
>   
>> Robert Adkins wrote:
>>     
>>>     Backup your data. Get a new HD ready to go.
>>>
>>>     Install the new HD and clone the one with the bad sectors. Put the
>>> bad sector disk out to pasture.
>>>
>>>     Rob
>>>       
>
>   
>> Any manufacturers you favor?
>>
>> The drive that's pooping out is an IBM Deskstar which I understand has
>> gotten the nickname "Deathstar".
>>
>> I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.
>>
>> Allen
>>     
>
> People are as varied as their preferred HD manufacturer of choice as they
> are their linux distro of choice.  People will also quote their given
> experiences with HDs failing, and someone else will be around to
> completely refute what they say.
>
> That being said, *I* will only buy Hitachi (replaced IBM), Western
> Digital, or Seagate (even though I've had past experience with some
> troubles working with Seagate support on getting SATA II drives firmware
> updated).
>
> The only manufacturer that I completely avoid is Maxtor, and probably for
> more of a historical reason, than the current products reliability, back
> in the day when I was doing a lot of building, Maxtor's crapped out all
> the time on me.
>
> I've had all kinds of HDs fail on me, Maxtor, WD, Seagate, IBM, etc.  And
> its pretty random, and I'm sure a lot of other factors come into play like
> case ventillation and such.
>
> Just check out the Hot Deals forum at Anandtech and see what HD deals roll
> through there, and get a good price.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug-discuss mailing list
> mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss
>
>   

well, said...

For my two cents, I will only buy WD and Seagate. I prefer WD, but 
seagate does offer the only five year warranty.


From MPR_Linux at Ameritech.net  Wed Jan 17 13:54:41 2007
From: MPR_Linux at Ameritech.net (Michael Rudas (computer))
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:54:41 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
	<45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
	<11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
Message-ID: <45AE70F1.3040604@Ameritech.net>

Mike wrote:

> The only manufacturer that I completely avoid is Maxtor, and probably for
> more of a historical reason...

Maxtor IS history.  It was purchased by Seagate about a year ago.  There 
are still Maxtor-branded drives sold, but how many actually come off the 
old Max lines?  I don't know...

Iv'e had pretty good luck with the current-generation Samsung drives, as 
well.

-- Mikey




From radkins at impelind.com  Wed Jan 17 15:23:33 2007
From: radkins at impelind.com (Robert Adkins)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:23:33 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
	<45AD2684.40504@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD2E5D.9050009@ameritech.net>
	<45AD396F.2060309@sbcglobal.net>	<45AD3C0E.9070002@impelind.com>
	<45AE457E.4010803@sbcglobal.net>
	<11863.136.2.1.153.1169056100.squirrel@mail.addictz.org>
Message-ID: <45AE85C5.1040302@impelind.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mdlug.org/pipermail/mdlug-discuss/attachments/20070117/d2befabb/attachment-0001.html>

From peter at petertheplumber.net  Sun Jan 21 19:59:33 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:59:33 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10 Easy Upgrade
Message-ID: <1169427573.4221.46.camel@plumber.site>

Hello Everyone,
	This past weekend I upgraded an IBM T30 Thinkpad from Ubuntu 6.06 to
6.10. I've been having problems with the machine freezing, seemingly at
random, network manager not automatically connecting, hyperlinks not
opening the appropriate program, etc despite my best attempts to set it
up properly. So I was trying to solve a lot of problems based in part on
my experiences loading 6.10 on my son's T22 Thinkpad. You might get the
idea I'm partial to Thinkpads???? ;-)
	At any rate I decided to upgrade using the suggested method, Update
Manager <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EdgyUpgrades>. I did back
things up as suggested and made notes as well. The update itself was
remarkable in it's lack of trouble. I elected to replace all the files
when asked if I wanted to. This part took several hours to complete. The
next morning I went back in and following the directions here
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Device/IntersilPrism25Wavelan?highlight=%28WifiDocs%2FDevice%29>
 and here <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/ThinkpadT30> 
adjusted the settings for my Intersil Corporation Prism 2.5 Wavelan minipci 
wireless adapter and suspend options in the files specified. I also disabled 
hibernate, this seemed to help? Of course I had to go through and  check all
 the personal settings in the various logins as well. 
	All seems to be well. All the issues I was looking to solve were solved
and I appear to have a much better machine for it! WooHoo!

Regards,
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From peter at petertheplumber.net  Sun Jan 21 20:21:17 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:21:17 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Netgear Wireless Access Point
Message-ID: <1169428877.4221.62.camel@plumber.site>

Hello Everyone,
	I've been having trouble with Netgear wireless routers and several
versions of Linux. I have trouble connecting to and actually going
somewhere once connected. Using Windows I do not remember having any
trouble but I've had trouble with two versions of SUSE and two versions
of Ubuntu. I have no such troubles with all three machines at any number
of public and private AP's. Once such AP is at a home and one is at a
local Big Boy. It appears to be random at this point and I'm thinking of
simply replacing the offending AP rather than spend a lot of time
troubleshooting. Any last thoughts?

Regards,
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From peter at petertheplumber.net  Mon Jan 22 00:47:03 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:47:03 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] SUSE 10.2 Success on an Thinkpad T30
Message-ID: <1169444823.4294.33.camel@plumber.site>

Hello Everyone,
	I think I'm now done with installing and configuring SUSE 10.2 on my
T30 Thinkpad. P4-M 2.0GHz, 1 gig RAM, 40.0GB HDD, 14.1 XGA(1024x768) TFT
LCD, cd/dvd combo rw, Modem(CDC), Ethernet(LOM), 802.11 minipci wireless
card. I would have to say it's been a complete success! The install and
initial configuration were very easy. I opted to go with Gnome for a
manager. Most everything just worked! Installing the printer/scanner was
a matter of a few mouse clicks, amazing! The only issues I had was an
annoying display flashing problem; that went away on it's own; and high
power consumption during suspend. Suspend/resume, ethernet, wireless,
printer, scanner, video, etc just worked! WooHoo! 
	To solve the suspend power consumption I went to
<http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ThinkWiki> to read up. I then used the
distro specific instructions at
<http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:ThinkPadPowerDrain> and the instructions at
<http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ACPI_sleep_power_drain_test_script> to
fix this problem. I won't know for several days whether things actually
worked, but indications are very good. According to the script, before
correcting things I was using over 8000mw for 1000sec. After I am using
less than 500mw for 1400 sec.
	So I have to say I prefer SUSE 10.2 over Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10. Mostly
because getting a scanner to run on Ubuntu is as big as a pain as it was
under SUSE 10.0. That being said I have no plans to replace Ubuntu 6.10
on the two Thinkpads that are running it.

Regards,
-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From gib at juno.com  Mon Jan 22 18:46:10 2007
From: gib at juno.com (gib at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:46:10 GMT
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Netgear Wireless Access Point
Message-ID: <20070122.154653.701.243461@webmail15.lax.untd.com>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://mdlug.org/pipermail/mdlug-discuss/attachments/20070122/73d7d917/attachment-0001.ksh>

From lnovak1 at ford.com  Tue Jan 23 09:32:10 2007
From: lnovak1 at ford.com (Novak, Louis (L.M.))
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:32:10 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10 Easy Upgrade
Message-ID: <E037466F30DD454FA3F82C941DFF92E1044485C5@na1fcm10.dearborn.ford.com>


Quelle coincidence.

I did the same for my HP laptop. Worked like a charm.

I didn't even bother to back up my files beforehand.

Confidence or foolishness, you decide. ;-)

-- 
Louis Novak  lnovak1 at ford.com   (313)248-6788 
Ford Motor Co., IT Competency Center
Ask me about my Mercury Mariner Hybrid  



-----Original Message-----
From: mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org
[mailto:mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bart
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:00 PM
To: mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10 Easy Upgrade

Hello Everyone,
	This past weekend I upgraded an IBM T30 Thinkpad from Ubuntu
6.06 to 6.10. I've been having problems with the machine freezing,
seemingly at random, network manager not automatically connecting,
hyperlinks not opening the appropriate program, etc despite my best
attempts to set it up properly. So I was trying to solve a lot of
problems based in part on my experiences loading 6.10 on my son's T22
Thinkpad. You might get the idea I'm partial to Thinkpads???? ;-)
	At any rate I decided to upgrade using the suggested method,
Update Manager <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EdgyUpgrades>. I did
back things up as suggested and made notes as well. The update itself
was remarkable in it's lack of trouble. I elected to replace all the
files when asked if I wanted to. This part took several hours to
complete. The next morning I went back in and following the directions
here
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Device/IntersilPrism25Wavela
n?highlight=%28WifiDocs%2FDevice%29>
 and here <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/ThinkpadT30>
adjusted the settings for my Intersil Corporation Prism 2.5 Wavelan
minipci wireless adapter and suspend options in the files specified. I
also disabled hibernate, this seemed to help? Of course I had to go
through and  check all  the personal settings in the various logins as
well. 
	All seems to be well. All the issues I was looking to solve were
solved and I appear to have a much better machine for it! WooHoo!

Regards,
--
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net

_______________________________________________
mdlug-discuss mailing list
mdlug-discuss at mdlug.org
http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug-discuss


From peter at petertheplumber.net  Wed Jan 24 14:27:22 2007
From: peter at petertheplumber.net (Peter Bart)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:27:22 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] Open Jobs in Ann Arbor
Message-ID: <1169666843.4733.76.camel@plumber.site>

Hi Everyone,
	I came across this <http://nsf.hodesiq.com/job_start.asp?user_id=>
while researching some water filters for a job. If you go to work there
I expect kickbacks ;-)

-- 
Peter Bart <peter at petertheplumber.net>
http://petertheplumber.net



From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Thu Jan 25 18:44:13 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:44:13 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
Message-ID: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>

I'm wondering if anyone here has used MATLAB before. I have to use it 
for a multimedia class at OU. Don't ask me why, because programming 
wasn't a prerequisite for the class, and our teacher didn't even teach 
us how to use MATLAB. If you've never heard of it, it's a programming 
language used primarily in academia and science. If you've programmed 
before, you basically have to forget everything you've learned or else 
the language doesn't make any sense (at least if you know C/C++, VB, or 
PHP). Apparently it resembles Fortran the most, so you can imagine how 
freakin fun it is to use.

Anyway, this is the problem I'm working on:

===================
1.(3pts) When you use the function of imwrite( ) to save an image file 
in JPEG format in MATLAB, you can choose different qualities. For 
example, let I be your image array, you can use
 >> imwrite(I, ?highQ.jpg?, ?jpg?, ?Quality?, 100);
to save I in high quality (par = 100) JPEG image.

Change the value of 100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1, to save the same image 
in different qualities.
Find the size of the resulted images.
Use your finding to plot a curve showing the file size as a function of 
image quality.
===================



And this is what I have so far:

===================
I = imread('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\castle.jpg')
%100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output100.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 100);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output80.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 80);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output60.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 60);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output40.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 40);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output20.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 20);
imwrite(I, '\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output1.jpg', 'jpg', 'Quality', 1);

imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output100.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output80.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output60.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output40.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output20.jpg')
imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output1.jpg')
===================

Apparently I can do:

imageinfo100 = imfinfo('\\titan\kwmarsha\Lab3\output100.jpg')

and it will create a matrix (yes, it's called a matrix instead of an 
array just to piss you off) with file dimensions, size, depth, etc. The 
third value of the matrix is the FileSize. I don't know how to access 
this, nor do I know how to print a variable to the output. Once I can 
get the raw value of how big the file is, I can then plot it to a curve, 
which should be easy (I hope).

If you're reading this and you actually 'do' like MATLAB, more power to 
ya. It can do a lot of stuff, but it's expensive, and I can't find very 
much info on the web about how to use the darn thing, so I'm frustrated 
with it currently. We had to downsample an image and quantize it back to 
full resolution last week, and I still don't even know how to print 
"Hello World"!


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Fri Jan 26 20:03:20 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:03:20 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
In-Reply-To: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com> (message from Kristoffer Marshall on
	Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:44:13 -0500)
References: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>

Kristoffer,

> I'm wondering if anyone here has used MATLAB before. [...]

Yes.  MATLAB is an excellent tool.  I've used it as a "programmable
calculator" for matrix arithmetic, complete with built-in
i/o for most numerical industrial equipment.

If you plan to do any development for automatic multimedia 
generation, simulation, numerical control, ..., you'll encounter
much matrix arithmetic.

As the de facto tool in the industry, you will find MATLAB
syntax (or reasonable facsimile thereto) often used as the
common language to express that matrix arithmetic.

At home, (where I don't have much numerical industrial equipment)
I use octave as my "programmable calculator" for matrix arithmetic.
I use ImageMagick, and sox for much of my multimedia manipulation.
All three are available with SuSE and other fine distros for prototyping
image and sound generation/processing algorithms.


> ===================
> 1.(3pts) When you use the function of imwrite( ) to save an image file 
> in JPEG format in MATLAB, you can choose different qualities. For 
> example, let I be your image array, you can use
>  >> imwrite(I, 'highQ.jpg?, 'jpg?, 'Quality?, 100);
> to save I in high quality (par = 100) JPEG image.

> Change the value of 100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1, to save the same image 
> in different qualities.
> Find the size of the resulted images.
> Use your finding to plot a curve showing the file size as a function of 
> image quality.
> ===================

I suspect your teacher is trying to introduce you to the language of
multimedia software development, along with demonstrating the concepts
of resolution, and quantization error.


If you don't have MATLAB available to convert your jpeg images,
consider using convert(1) from Kodak's ImageMagick package.
See -quality in the convert(1) man page.  You'll have to type in,
or *horror of horrors* write a perl/sh/... script :)  to capture
the sizes and plot them.  The integration and scripting of
matrix reading, calculation, and presentation is what many MATLAB
users find worth pay for.

You should find that the image size usually drops rapidly at first
and then slowly, but the perceived "distortion" drops slowly at first
and then fast.  Try several types of images (e.g. landscape photo,
cartoon sketch, wireframe diagram, cloudscape, ...) to get a
feel for the tradeoff.


> ... I still don't even know how to print "Hello World"!

  MATLAB: 1> 'Hello World'

Typing 07734 into upside down calculator,
-- 
Dr. Robert J. Meier


From marshall.kris at gmail.com  Sat Jan 27 01:36:16 2007
From: marshall.kris at gmail.com (Kristoffer Marshall)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:36:16 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
In-Reply-To: <200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>
References: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>
	<200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>
Message-ID: <45BAF2E0.8010707@gmail.com>

Robert Meier wrote:
> Kristoffer,
>
>   
>> I'm wondering if anyone here has used MATLAB before. [...]
>>     
>
> Yes.  MATLAB is an excellent tool.  I've used it as a "programmable
> calculator" for matrix arithmetic, complete with built-in
> i/o for most numerical industrial equipment.
>
> If you plan to do any development for automatic multimedia 
> generation, simulation, numerical control, ..., you'll encounter
> much matrix arithmetic.
>
> As the de facto tool in the industry, you will find MATLAB
> syntax (or reasonable facsimile thereto) often used as the
> common language to express that matrix arithmetic.
>
> At home, (where I don't have much numerical industrial equipment)
> I use octave as my "programmable calculator" for matrix arithmetic.
> I use ImageMagick, and sox for much of my multimedia manipulation.
> All three are available with SuSE and other fine distros for prototyping
> image and sound generation/processing algorithms.
>
>
>   
>> ===================
>> 1.(3pts) When you use the function of imwrite( ) to save an image file 
>> in JPEG format in MATLAB, you can choose different qualities. For 
>> example, let I be your image array, you can use
>>  >> imwrite(I, 'highQ.jpg?, 'jpg?, 'Quality?, 100);
>> to save I in high quality (par = 100) JPEG image.
>>     
>
>   
>> Change the value of 100 to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 1, to save the same image 
>> in different qualities.
>> Find the size of the resulted images.
>> Use your finding to plot a curve showing the file size as a function of 
>> image quality.
>> ===================
>>     
>
> I suspect your teacher is trying to introduce you to the language of
> multimedia software development, along with demonstrating the concepts
> of resolution, and quantization error.
>
>
> If you don't have MATLAB available to convert your jpeg images,
> consider using convert(1) from Kodak's ImageMagick package.
> See -quality in the convert(1) man page.  You'll have to type in,
> or *horror of horrors* write a perl/sh/... script :)  to capture
> the sizes and plot them.  The integration and scripting of
> matrix reading, calculation, and presentation is what many MATLAB
> users find worth pay for.
>
> You should find that the image size usually drops rapidly at first
> and then slowly, but the perceived "distortion" drops slowly at first
> and then fast.  Try several types of images (e.g. landscape photo,
> cartoon sketch, wireframe diagram, cloudscape, ...) to get a
> feel for the tradeoff.
>
>
>   
>> ... I still don't even know how to print "Hello World"!
>>     
>
>   MATLAB: 1> 'Hello World'
>
> Typing 07734 into upside down calculator,
>   
:-p Thanks. I'm actually pretty familiar with ImageMagick, and I'd 
rather use it than MATLAB because it looks like the class is going to be 
web-oriented anyway (we're doing Flash too). MATLAB can do some pretty 
cool stuff, but the things our teacher is making us do are things that 
most people aren't using MATLAB for, so it's really really hard to find 
examples on the web about this stuff.

So, I know how to do Hello World. Now, how do I print a variable? Yet 
another thing my teacher failed to point out. :-)


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Sat Jan 27 09:19:00 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:19:00 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MDLUG usage reminder
Message-ID: <45BB5F54.mailHC21KZ9C4@freehold.wwnet.com>

This is the monthly reminder of
     mdlug List Guidelines.
Please send comments to eaglecoach at wwnet.com
Meetings are monthly (http://www.mdlug.org/meetings/meetings.html).

*Courtesy:*
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you in their place.

See /Emily Postnews/ (http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html) and
  /Netiquette Guidelines/ (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html) for details.

If you find something objectionable or off-topic, please send a courteous
  note offlist to the author (and/or postmaster at mdlug.org) rather than list.
  (The rule is simple, do not be easily annoyed or annoying.)

Please post messages in plain text (rather than html or rich text).
  See http://expita.com/nomime.html for instructions for your browser.

Please remove References: field when starting a new subject.

Please trim your replies so that you only quote the parts you are are
  replying to, rather than the entire original message , and
  prefix with '>'. (Most mail clients do this part automatically.)

Please do not cross-post, and if you feel you must, please direct
  discussion to one list with a reply-to; field

*Lists:*
 mdlug-admin    mdlug administration

 mdlug-newbie   questions/answers with explanation of concepts
                assume the questioner was unaware of the
                man/info/... pages
                initial configuration of ???

 mdlug          ANNOUNCE: announcements only, no discussion

 mdlug          questions/answers using jargon
                assume the questioner has read the man/info/... pages
                technical (e.g. howto, perl scripts)

 mdlug-discuss  politics
                Microsoft-bashing
                my disto can beat up your distro, and other flames
                anything else

*Filtering and Security*
If you lack time or interest to follow some of the topics, ask
 mdlug-newbie for suggestions on filtering mail automatically.

We welcome the many who listen silently, and invite them to post when
 they wish to contribute either questions or answers.

We strip the reply to addresses from the headers of messages before putting
 them in the archives.

Likewise, our archiving software quashes email addresses in the body of
 messages, to make them difficult for spammers to harvest. However they
 will still be human readable so you might want to consider this before
 posting personal email addresses.

Have fun!


From eaglecoach at wwnet.com  Sat Jan 27 20:47:34 2007
From: eaglecoach at wwnet.com (Robert Meier)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:47:34 -0500
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] MATLAB anyone?
In-Reply-To: <45BAF2E0.8010707@gmail.com> (message from Kristoffer Marshall on
	Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:36:16 -0500)
References: <45B940CD.5030703@gmail.com>
	<200701270103.l0R13KVO014674@freehold.wwnet.com>
	<45BAF2E0.8010707@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200701280147.l0S1lY5L024120@freehold.wwnet.com>

Kristoffer,

> ... Thanks.

You're welcome.



> ... it's really really hard to find examples on the web about [MATLAB] ...

These days, I'm using C++, perl, and java more frequently than matlab.

The following may prove more helpful than I.
(I did not test whether or not all the following are currently active.)

matrix mathematics
	Matrix mathematics is a crucial underpinning of simulation,
	automatic multimedia processing/generation.
	A good engineering textbook on linear systems will include a
	section that can get you successfully started on matrix mathematics.
	http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Systems-Panos-J-Antsaklis/dp/0817644342/ref=pd_sim_b_2/002-4904752-5748867

Newsgroup
	news:comp.soft-sys.matlab

Newsgroup-mail gateway
	http://newsreader.mathworks.com/WebX?14@@/comp.soft-sys.matlab

Mailing list
	https://mailman.cs.bham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/matlab-users 
	http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/archive.html
		(matlab and octave users overlap)

Matlab 5 Handbook
	http://www.amazon.com/MATLAB-5-Handbook-Darren-Redfern/dp/0387942009
		(I have found its predecessor useful.)

octave
	Look for octave examples.  Though not an integrated environment
	like MATLAB, octave often requires only a thin glue layer to
	integrate with other unix packages (e.g. ImageMagick).



> ... Now, how do I print a variable?  [blamestorming deleted]

  MATLAB: 1> variable=3;
  MATLAB: 2> variable
  ans=3

-- 
Dr. Robert J. Meier


From akulkis3 at hotpop.com  Tue Jan 16 13:55:13 2007
From: akulkis3 at hotpop.com (Aaron Kulkis)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:55:13 +0300
Subject: [mdlug-discuss] disk monitoring hardware
In-Reply-To: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
References: <45AD143A.3050703@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <45AD1F91.4040609@hotpop.com>

allen wrote:
> I've got a hard drive that seems to be showing signs of illness. Any 
> open source suggestions for disk health monitoring software, preferably 
> found in Mandriva. Don't care whether it's a GUI or command line program.
> 

Do you have the S.M.A.R.T. package installed?

If not, why not?




